The US Supreme Court on Sept. 11 allowed enforcement of a policy that would deny asylum to Central American migrants who pass through another country en route to the US and fail to make a claim for protection there. US District Court Judge Jon Tigar blocked the new rule in July by issuing a nationwide injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently scaled back the order so that it only pertained to Ninth Circuit states, which include California and Arizona. In response to Judge Tigar's recent attempt to return his order to its original scope, the Trump administration requested that the Ninth Circuit temporarily stay the injunction. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the stay authorizes the Trump administration to proceed with nationwide implementation of the policy even though it is still being challenged in the lower courts.

The five justices who voted in favor of the stay were not announced, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented, writing:

In sum, granting a stay pending appeal should be an "extraordinary" act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely, now it does so reflexively. Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut the Government now invites. I regret that my colleagues have not exercised the same restraint here.

The Supreme Court's order will terminate if the high court declines to hear the case.

From Jurist, Sept. 12. Used with permission.

Note: This is one of the Trump administration's several moves to discourage asylum-seekers, some of which remain pending in the courts.