What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California outlawing talk therapy for minors with unwanted same-sex attraction, it must likewise uphold Idaho’s ban on invasive and potentially irreversible medical treatments to make gender-confused minors resemble the opposite sex, the Gem State’s outside lawyer told a three-judge panel Thursday.
Read the full story
by Mary Margaret Olohan An appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can ban taxpayer-funded abortion clinics from performing abortions or making abortion referrals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration can bar clinics from performing abortions or making abortion referrals, according to Politico. For the first time in history, the new Title X regulations will allow federal funding to go to faith-based clinics that promote natural family planning or abstinence-only methods. The rule will allow the Trump administration to strip federal funding of any clinic that fails to comply with the new Title X regulations. The move will potentially cost Planned Parenthood “tens of millions of federal family planning dollars,” according to the publication. “Absent a stay, HHS will be forced to allow taxpayer dollars to be spent in a manner that it has concluded violates the law, as well as the Government’s important policy interest in ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not go to fund or subsidize abortions,” the panel of three Republican-appointed judges wrote in a 3-0 opinion. Politico reports that this is a “major blow” for the abortion industry, and Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen called the ruling “unethical,…
Read the full story
by Grace Carr The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to return asylum seekers to Mexico while they await immigration hearings following a temporary lift on an injunction barring the administration from action. Staff at the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are preparing to enforce President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await a hearing. USCIS officials told staffers to ready themselves for enforcement of the policy, according to emails obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The “Remain in Mexico” policy is intended to help immigration officials who face a growing crisis at the border. The policy has likely contributed to growing numbers of immigrants trying to cross the border illegally rather than through ports of entry, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The move comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California temporarily lifted an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing the policy. The temporary lift followed San Francisco Judge Richard Seeborg’s April 8 order for the administration to halt the deportation of asylum seekers, according to The Associated Press. An internal memo referenced the 9th Circuit’s decision “that granted the government’s emergency…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily lifted an order suspending the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a Trump administration policy that requires Central American asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico before their appearance in immigration court. Though the Friday evening stay is not indicative of the government’s future prospects in this case, it was a rare victory for an administration that has often struggled before the left-leaning court. “Finally, great news at the border!” President Donald Trump tweeted Friday night. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen began implementing the MPP in December 2018 following negotiations with the Mexican government. The government claimed the program was authorized by a provision of federal law allowing the attorney general to return aliens arriving from neighboring countries. The provision provides: “In the case of an alien…who is arriving on land from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the attorney general may return the alien to that territory,” pending further proceedings before an immigration judge. A coalition of immigrant advocacy groups sued, arguing the MPP deprives migrants of “a meaningful opportunity to seek asylum” since they are returned to violent areas without resources to fully prepare their case. U.S.…
Read the full story
The United States Constitution does contain a few references relative to immigration and naturalization as well as to persons seeking to enter the United States in contravention of its laws — whether violently or non-violently and whether singly or in the form of a human tsunami. In its Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization….” By expressly allocating this capacity to Congress, the Constitution seeks to prevent the confusion which would inevitably result if an individual state could itself bestow U.S. citizenship upon a person not born within the boundaries of that — or any other — state. Construing Clause 4, the United States Supreme Court, in the 1892 case of Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, defined “naturalization” as “…the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native [U.S.] citizen.” In Clause 11 of that same Article I, Section 8, the Constitution authorizes Congress “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Interpreting Clause 11, the High Court ruled in the 1795 case of Penhallow v. Doane that the war power of the United States government is…
Read the full story