Supreme Court Stays Nationwide Injunction on Migrant Protection Protocols

RNLA Co-Chair Harmeet Dhillon wrote today at Fox News about how the Supreme Court staying a nationwide injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against President Trump's Migrant Protection Protocol will promote the rule of law:

This week’s Supreme Court decision to stay the lower court’s ruling does not speak to the merits — or constitutionality — of the MPP. It does, however, give the federal government the authority to enforce the policy while the high court decides whether to hear the case, a decision that could take months. If the court decides not to hear the case, the stay would be lifted and the District Court’s decision would stand.

This is good news for the rule of law and an orderly and fair asylum process.

This nationwide injunction is a symptom of the legal resistance against President Trump's policies that has been pursued since he took office:

Legally, the president has broad discretion over immigration policy and enforcement and specifically has the authority to impose the “wait in Mexico” rule. Since Trump took office,  Democrats have made every effort to derail the implementation of his policies, especially his immigration policies. They often go to federal district courts with friendly judges ready to issue sweeping, nationwide injunctions of questionable legality. This chaos has to end.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to correct the District Court’s overbroad and legally infirm opinion and by doing so, may permanently restore President Trump’s authority to enforce federal immigration laws in a manner that balances the legitimate interests of asylum seekers against a long history of abuse of the asylum program and the safety and fairness needs of our national immigration policies.

If the high court also chooses to address the issue of runaway national injunctions, so much the better. A return to balance and normative rulings is long overdue.

Careful forum selection should not be the vehicle for overturning the policy judgments of the President or Congress, particularly through controversial nationwide injunctions.