Top Stories
Top Stories
Politics

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him enforce asylum ban blocked by 'Obama judge' 

Key Points
  • The Trump administration on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let it enforce a policy limiting asylum claims from those crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.
  • The controversial policy was temporarily blocked from going into effect by U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar in November.
President Donald Trump answers questions from the press while departing the White House in Washington, DC. 
Win McNamee | Getty Images

The Trump administration on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let it enforce a policy limiting asylum claims from those crossing into the U.S. from Mexico illegally.

The controversial policy was temporarily blocked from going into effect by U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar in November. That ruling was affirmed by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the justices to permit the policy to go forward. In an appeal submitted to Justice Elena Kagan, Francisco wrote that the district court injunction is "deeply flawed" and argued that it will have "significant implications for ongoing diplomatic negotiations and foreign relations."

Kagan has asked for a response to the government's appeal by Monday.

Trump blasted Tigar for his November ruling granting the preliminary injunction in the matter, calling him an "Obama judge."

That earned a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who issued a statement saying that America does not have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."

Francisco wrote Tuesday that if the injunction remains in place, there is a "reasonable probability" that the Supreme Court will agree to take the case and "more than a fair prospect" that it will do away with it altogether.

He argued that the four advocacy groups who brought the original suit lack standing because they are not undocumented immigrants.

"Enjoining the rule will continue to cause irreparable harm to the government and the public," Francisco wrote. "Respondents, by contrast, have not demonstrated any irreparable harm to themselves or to any actual clients."