A small win. The Court didn't actually rule on the law, they just didn't void it. Even your article says it may end up in front of the Court again. I'm sure albaby can comment more intelligently on the nuances of the ruling. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Court refused to get into an "administrative stay" from a lower court.

Given that the Court shot down multiple attempts by Trump and Biden to tighten border requirements, I suspect this was more addressing legal points and court jurisdictions, and less about addressing measures to limit immigration. In fact, given our understanding of federal law and the Geneva Convention, it is a blatant violation of those laws to arrest and deport people once they are on US soil without giving them an asylum hearing (assuming they ask for asylum, and pass an initial interview).

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.