The title of this column promises to give some thought to the Supreme Court, so I’ll be back to court now. The focus of this country was elsewhere two weeks ago when five justices gave the Trump administration exactly what it needed to make the most meaningful and unreasonably effective of all its recent immigration policies. This was a major extension of the “public charge” rule, which prohibits any immigrant from entering or permanently entering “admission that is likely to be a public charge” at any time.
The concept of “public charge” in itself is nothing new. It was part of the country’s initial effort to control immigration in the late nineteenth century, where it used to exclude poor households or its equivalent – this historic definition – “primarily dependent on the government for cash assistance or long-term institutionalization” – was issued by Federal Immigration Officers in 1. The “field direction” issued was approved.
Last August, the administration set a new definition. Any immigrant who is equivalent to a 12-month federal benefit over a three-year period will be treated as a public charge, considered ineligible for permanent residence or as a way of citizenship. Benefits designated include nutritional support of any child under the SNAP program; Chapter 8 Acquisition of housing vouchers or housing in public housing; And medical treatment under Medicaid. The new rules, combining benefits, in the title of Indemnity on Public Charge Grounds – that is, three benefits received in one month are counted as three months of 12.
Countries, states and non-profit organizations have filed lawsuits with various preliminary results. Plaintiffs argued that the drastic change in definition was “voluntary and amusing,” violating the basic requirements of the administrative procedure for “rational decision-making”.
In October, George Daniels, a federal district judge in New York, Has ruled in favor of Two sets of plaintiffs, one group led by New York State and the other, a coalition of nonprofit organizations. Judge Daniels noted that the government had “ample opportunity to make public charges on a reasonable basis for equating with receiving benefits for 12 months, especially when this rule never happened,” but his lawyers “failed” each and every time. “He explained that” where a policy changes prior to an organization’s action, the agent will not have to show that the reasons for the new policy Good Than the old reason. It must be shown that there are good reasons for the new policy.
And Judge Daniels added: “The rule is simply a new agency’s policy of exclusion in pursuit of justice. It is contrary to the American dream of prosperity and opportunity for success through upward mobility.” That would cause them “significant hardship”. United States, “he issued a nationwide order stopping its implementation.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quickly pushed the government’s appeal on track, but in the interim, the order refused to suspend sanctions. So, predictably, the administration turned to its friends in the Supreme Court and, equally predictably, got what they wanted. Court to vote from 1 to Suspension Order for suspension by appeal of future Supreme Court.