The High Court’s Injunction Slapdown
A victory for the rule of law, no matter who is President.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 12, 2019 6:21 pm ET
After three flip-flops in lower courts, the Supreme Court intervened Wednesday to let President Trump’s new asylum rules take effect as legal challenges proceed. This is a victory for a functioning judiciary and the rule of law, no matter who is President.
To review: On July 15, the Trump Administration moved to bar asylum claims from refugees who transited a third country, such as Mexico, without trying to stay there first.
On July 24, Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland, Calif., issued a sweeping injunction that blocked the asylum policy’s enforcement nationwide.
On Aug. 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed that order to apply in its jurisdiction alone, saying Judge Tigar had “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harm.”
On Sept. 9, Judge Tigar reinstated his original order’s unlimited scope, saying the plaintiffs in the case could get “complete relief” only if the policy were blocked entirely.
On Sept. 10, the Ninth Circuit reversed that reversal, issuing a stay of Judge Tigar’s renewed injunction, pending further review.
This is no way to run a judiciary. In seven weeks, federal officials got five different directives: implement, stay, implement, stay, implement. The Ninth Circuit covers California and Arizona, but the other end of the Mexican border is 1,000 highway miles away, in Texas.
Nationwide injunctions are supposed to be extraordinary measures to prevent irreparable harm. Judge Tigar couldn’t make a convincing argument. The plaintiffs are aid groups that help migrants. If the asylum rules took effect in Texas and New Mexico, what permanent injury would befall them? Judge Tigar’s first example was that one of the nonprofits would have to “redesign its workshops and templates.”
He also cited “the need to maintain uniform immigration policy,” saying that bifurcated asylum rules would “create major administrability issues.” The executive branch didn’t agree.
The Supreme Court’s intercession isn’t about Mr. Trump’s policy choices. It’s about the proper operation of the lower courts. The Justices’ unsigned order puts Judge Tigar’s overdrawn injunctions on hold, awaiting Ninth Circuit and perhaps High Court consideration. Courts may eventually rule that Mr. Trump’s asylum rules contravene the law. But until then the Supreme Court is right to rein in a judge who blocks the policy nationwide, with little evidence of irreparable harm and no respect for the President’s authority or duty to protect the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hig...wn-11568326896
Big Supreme Court Win For The President.
