For now, the Supreme Court helps Trump secure the southern border

In December 2018, the Trump administration announced that, when people came seeking asylum, it would return the asylum-seekers to Mexico pending review of their petitions.  This program came to be known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ("MPP").  The Ninth Circuit blocked the MPP but issued a temporary stay to allow the administration to seek emergency redress from the Supreme Court.  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court supported the stay until it can review the government's writ of certiorari.

One of the primary purposes behind the MPP was to keep families together.  Democrats had been upset with Trump for following the Obama policy of keeping children separate from adults to protect them from predators and sex-traffickers.  With more families coming across the border, and inadequate facilities to keep children with their parents, the only way to keep families together was to return them to Latin America.

The MPP went into effect in January 2019.  In the year since then, the federal government sent more than 60,000 asylum-seekers to Mexico.  The asylum-seekers claim that drug cartels and kidnappers threaten them and that volunteers are their only source of necessary supplies.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit sided with the asylum-seekers, holding that the Trump administration must admit them to the U.S. while they await asylum.  It held that, as a matter of law, the federal government could not send back people claiming refugee status.  Experience shows that once in the U.S., most of them simply vanish.

The one sop the Ninth Circuit threw to the administration was a one-week stay, which would allow the administration to seek an emergency reprieve from the Supreme Court.  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court came through for the administration.

The Court did not reach the merits of the matter.  Instead, it held that the Ninth Circuit's order was stayed until the administration could file a formal petition for writ of certiorari (that is, a request for Supreme Court review).  Only if the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of cert would the stay automatically terminate:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court's April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.

Democrat media outlets have been warning that these migrant camps are ripe for the spread of coronavirus.  Since time immemorial, one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of disease is border control.  Before the southern border became a "thing," people immigrating to America had to prove their health and financial ability at either Ellis Island off New York or Angel Island off San Francisco.

Trump knew, looking at the migrants flocking across the southern border, that they would eventually bring financial destruction or disease.  He was right.  It's to be hoped that the Supreme Court reaches the same conclusion when it has the opportunity to review the MPP on the merits.  Indeed, reading the tea leaves of the stay order, it might already have reached that conclusion.

In December 2018, the Trump administration announced that, when people came seeking asylum, it would return the asylum-seekers to Mexico pending review of their petitions.  This program came to be known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ("MPP").  The Ninth Circuit blocked the MPP but issued a temporary stay to allow the administration to seek emergency redress from the Supreme Court.  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court supported the stay until it can review the government's writ of certiorari.

One of the primary purposes behind the MPP was to keep families together.  Democrats had been upset with Trump for following the Obama policy of keeping children separate from adults to protect them from predators and sex-traffickers.  With more families coming across the border, and inadequate facilities to keep children with their parents, the only way to keep families together was to return them to Latin America.

The MPP went into effect in January 2019.  In the year since then, the federal government sent more than 60,000 asylum-seekers to Mexico.  The asylum-seekers claim that drug cartels and kidnappers threaten them and that volunteers are their only source of necessary supplies.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit sided with the asylum-seekers, holding that the Trump administration must admit them to the U.S. while they await asylum.  It held that, as a matter of law, the federal government could not send back people claiming refugee status.  Experience shows that once in the U.S., most of them simply vanish.

The one sop the Ninth Circuit threw to the administration was a one-week stay, which would allow the administration to seek an emergency reprieve from the Supreme Court.  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court came through for the administration.

The Court did not reach the merits of the matter.  Instead, it held that the Ninth Circuit's order was stayed until the administration could file a formal petition for writ of certiorari (that is, a request for Supreme Court review).  Only if the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of cert would the stay automatically terminate:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court's April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.

Democrat media outlets have been warning that these migrant camps are ripe for the spread of coronavirus.  Since time immemorial, one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of disease is border control.  Before the southern border became a "thing," people immigrating to America had to prove their health and financial ability at either Ellis Island off New York or Angel Island off San Francisco.

Trump knew, looking at the migrants flocking across the southern border, that they would eventually bring financial destruction or disease.  He was right.  It's to be hoped that the Supreme Court reaches the same conclusion when it has the opportunity to review the MPP on the merits.  Indeed, reading the tea leaves of the stay order, it might already have reached that conclusion.