In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president's new rule from taking effect.
That move was immediately challenged in the lower courts, and it may come back to the Supreme Court once ongoing legal challenges have been completed. It represents the latest effort by Trump's administration to crack down on illegal immigration, a signature issue during his presidency and 2020 re-election bid.More news: Britain is not seeking N. Ireland-only backstop - PM Johnson's spokesman
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates USA immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule.
In her dissent, Sotomayor said that the government's rule may be in significant tension with the asylum statute. Tigar, an appointee of President Barack Obama, first halted the policy in July, saying the injunction "would vindicate the public's interest - which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate - in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors". The effect of that injunction was blunted by the 9th Circuit Court ruling restricting it to Arizona and California.
They were both trumped by Supreme Court, which will allow the asylum restriction to remain in place until the underlying legality of the rule is determined at trial. "The life of countless numbers of people are at stake". That had left open the possibility that the rule could be applied in the two other border states, Texas and New Mexico. They are mostly ineligible beneath the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South The us who get there frequently at the southern border. The rule would keep asylum protections for Mexican citizens.More news: US Open 2019: Serena Williams criticises 'inexcusable' performance in final defeat
The Supreme Court in November will consider whether the Trump administration acted lawfully when it cancelled an Obama-era program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that provided benefits to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the USA as children. "The court should not permit such a tectonic change to USA asylum law".
Wednesday's order is a major victory for the administration, which argued the rule was necessary to screen out "asylum seekers who declined to request protection at the first opportunity".
The Trump administration has been harshly critical of what it sees as a relatively new judicial phenomenon where a single district judge halts a policy across the country before it can percolate through the lower courts and reach the Supreme Court.More news: Condoleezza Rice Backs Trump in Cancelling Taliban Camp David Peace Meeting
A US District decide had blocked the coverage from going into impact nationwide - days after it was unveiled in July - however the Supreme Courtroom determined to reverse the choice in a quick order late within the day.