(ThePatriotSource.com) – The Supreme Court recently decided that President Donald’s Trump “public charge” rule in Illinois can stand. This law limits the number of non-citizens that can obtain visas to enter the United States.
In all cases, there is a dissenting opinion. In this case, though, the dissenting rebuke was pretty scathing to Trump and his administration. Sonia Sotomayer, who was appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama, took aim at not only the court’s decision, but on the conservative majority as well.
In her dissent, she wrote:
“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”
The case in question has to do with the Trump administration expanding the situations in which the U.S. can deny visas to non-U.S. citizens who want to enter the country. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security expanded its definition of when a person would become a “public charge,” or essentially someone who would be “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.”
The government could already take into account if someone were a public charge when denying a visa, but they didn’t used to be able to count any non-cash benefits such as some forms of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Following Homeland Security’s expansion last year, though, they could.
That new federal law was blocked by a nationwide injunction as part of a separate case. However, this ruling in Wolf v. Cook County allows the rule to be used in Illinois only, at least while litigation continues for the nationwide scope.
Sotomayer isn’t just concerned with the decision in this case, though. She didn’t believe that the federal government had any reason to force putting this injunction on hold, nor that the Supreme Court needed to do so. Not only does she feel this sort of thing is out of character for the court, but she is concerned that it’s becoming the norm.
As she wrote in her dissent:
“Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each. And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”
Sotomayer is also concerned that the Supreme Court continues to pander to the Trump administration, instead of serving as an independent branch of the government.
“I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision-making process that this Court must strive to protect,” she wrote.
It’s hard to totally agree with her point of view, though, especially as two conservative justices who were appointed by Trump — specifically Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — have sided with the liberal justices in a few cases.