
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS says Trump admin can prevent immigration judges from giving amnesty
Posted on 10/27/26 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 10/27/26 at 7:23 pm
LINK
quote:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the Trump administration in declining to restore a Biden-era rule that allowed immigration judges to suspend thousands of deportation cases. There were no noted dissents in the brief unsigned order. Joe Biden had allowed deportation cases to be vacated, allowing illegal aliens to remain the US with no real legal status.
At the center of the case was the regulation that provides “administrative closure,” which was adopted by the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review Executive Office for Immigration Review in 2024. The regulation allows immigration judges to shelve some deportation proceedings, such as for crime victims or those seeking asylum, per SCOTUSblog.
Texas sued the federal government over the regulation in June, saying that the administrative closure rule was “one part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s campaign to undermine our immigration laws.” Instead of defending the Biden-era regulation, the DOJ asked the court to enter a final judgment for the state that would see the regulation thrown out and an order issued that the EOIR could not adopt similar rules in the future. The requests were granted.
Three cities with large migrant populations filed an emergency petition in August. These were Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio, as well as the migrant legal services group Centro Legal de la Raza. They were seeking to defend the Biden-era regulation, however, the judge denied their request, saying that they lacked the legal right to sue.
The petitioners went to the US Circuit of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which rejected their request to block the agreement between Texas and the DOJ. They went to the Supreme Court on October 9, claiming that the agreement between Texas and the DOJ was the product of “egregious collusion.”
Posted on 10/27/26 at 7:27 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
SCOTUS rules the president has the authority to prevent the destruction of the constitutional republic? 
Posted on 10/27/26 at 7:45 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
The petitioners went to the US Circuit of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which rejected their request to block the agreement between Texas and the DOJ.
Those sue and settle agreements suck when they're goring the Left's sacred cows.
Posted on 10/27/26 at 7:48 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Immigration judges are not “real” federal judges how we would ordinarily think. They fall under the executive branch, not Article III, so this makes sense.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 11:35 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
SCOTUS rules the president has the authority to prevent the destruction of the constitutional republic
How nice of them.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 11:59 am to BTROleMisser
This should be front page news.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:07 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Without legislation from Congress, a Dem President would have the power to tell the Judges to do exactly the opposite.
It is ping pong. Without Congressional action it has very little value in the long run.
It is ping pong. Without Congressional action it has very little value in the long run.

Popular
Back to top

4










