In the latest chapter of the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reform immigration policies, a whirlwind of court rulings has surfaced, each stirring its own pot of controversy. The weightiest of these involves Harvard University’s contentious ability, or rather inability, to admit international students. A Boston judge put the brakes on the White House’s plan to revoke this prestigious Ivy League school’s enrollment of foreign students, at least temporarily. The administration’s stance is that these students could pose a terrorism risk, painting with a brush so broad it would rival even the most ambitious modern art. It’s as if they’re suggesting Harvard should be transformed from its historic intellectual haven into the world’s most elite gated community.
Meanwhile, the wizards of our Supreme Court have been busy ending deportation protections for Venezuelan migrants. The claim is that presidents have the power to tweak the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, and naturally, the Court was quick to side with the authority of the presidency. Now, TPS, initially meant to protect those fleeing perilous homelands, is riding a roller coaster of interpretations as each administration cranks the levers. President Trump decided the ride had gone on long enough, bringing it to a sudden and premature halt. This decision is a textbook example of the president’s constitutional prerogatives intervening with the ever-complex tapestry of immigration.
The tangled web doesn’t stop there. A Massachusetts judge has ordered a hold on the deportation of South Sudanese migrants, maintaining that the U.S. must retain control over deportees who have tangled with the law. The courtrooms have become a battlefield for judicial and executive power struggles, a spectacle that has become all too familiar in recent years. Judges, it seems, are jumping into political disputes with the eagerness of leaping salmon against a current — except it’s not water they’re battling, but the inundation of executive actions.
In this unfolding legal theater, one can’t help but witness the déjà vu of famous — or infamous — legal precedents being mimed. Historical decisions like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade echo through the corridors of the judiciary, reminding everyone of the monumental rifts they had caused. The Supreme Court is now tasked with untangling the newfound legal challenges. A smarter move, some might suggest, would be to lob this responsibility to the highest court alone and free the lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions like Halloween candy.
Regrettably, not all judicial actions are met with approbation. A judge in Wisconsin is finding herself in hot water, not for trumping convention, but for criminally colluding to help someone slip from the clutches of ICE. Her behavior, alleged to be the epitome of judicial recklessness, stands as a shocking aberration from the norm. Blurring the lines between personal values and legal obligations, this case exemplifies what happens when a judicial officer attempts to sit on a throne of rose petals while wielding the sword of justice. As it stands, these ongoing legal sagas make clear the turbulent yet riveting voyage of America’s immigration system.
