Supreme Courts Sides With Trump Once Again, This Time On CRITICAL Immigration Law
Once again the Supreme Court of the United States has sided with President Trump. I honestly can’t think of a time when it hasn’t since he became President.
Liberals are constantly trying to challenge everything that President Trump does which they don’t like…which is actually everything, so time after time the Supreme Court gets dragged into matters and rules in favor of the President.
He knows what he’s doing and isn’t the tyrant that liberals try to claim he is. But we all know that. He’s just a good leader who hates corruption, which is why they don’t like him. If liberals want to actually deal with corruption and tyrants then they should start looking at themselves and these liberal governors that are putting in place unconstitutional restrictions on things that should not be restricted.
President Trump tweeted, “A great time to have strong Borders, and we now have the strongest Borders in our history. 182 miles of Border Wall already built! Dems want Open Borders, let EVERYONE IN. No thanks!”
A great time to have strong Borders, and we now have the strongest Borders in our history. 182 miles of Border Wall already built! Dems want Open Borders, let EVERYONE IN. No thanks! https://t.co/XdW55c0kKv
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2020
The Supreme Court unanimously resurrected a federal law struck down by an appeals court that made it a felony to encourage people to come to or stay illegally in the United States.
The May 7 ruling was a dramatic victory for the Trump administration, which had urged the high court to reverse a 2018 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. President Donald Trump, who has made immigration his signature issue, also favors reducing both illegal and legal immigration, along with cracking down on illegal aliens.
The problem, according to the Supreme Court, was that the lower court selected activist groups to dominate arguments against the law and then accepted their reasons for why it should be invalidated, even though the defendant herself did not raise those same concerns in her defense.
Source:
The Epoch Times