The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.
More than 100 companies including Twitter, Microsoft and LinkedIn filed an amicus brief on January 16, saying that Trump's public charge rule "creates substantial, unprecedented, and unnecessary obstacles for individuals seeking to come to the United States or, once here, to adjust their immigration status".
Monday's vote split on ideological lines, with the five Conservative judges in the majority.
The administration had asked the high court to let the rule take effect even before the New York-based U.S. District Court of Appeals rules 2 on Trump's appeal of Daniels' order against the rule.
The Trump administration had blasted the injunction before asking the Supreme Court to remove the hold on the rule's implementation.
The theory of a public charge rule has existed for decades, but wasn't codified until the Trump administration drew up this rule in 2017. Under the old rules, people who used non-cash benefits, including food stamps and Medicaid, were not considered public charges. If the government determines a person is or could become a "public charge", they can block a person from getting a visa, green card, citizenship, and other forms of legal status.
Acting Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli praised the ruling saying the Trump administration is "happy to see the Supreme Court step in the way they did here".
The administration said it is just trying to make sure immigrants can cover their own expenses to avoid beconing a burden on taxpayers. Critics have said the rule will disproportionately ban low-income people from developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia from permanent residence. But US guidelines in the country for the past two decades had said that immigrants would likely become largely dependent exclusively on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalization, in a nursing home for example, at government expense would be banned under " public upload ".
Under the new policy, immigration officials can deny green cards to legal immigrants over their use of public benefits.
Monday's order means that the rule can take effect in all states, pending appeal, with the exception of IL, which is subject to a separate injunction. "It makes it harder for working class people to immigrate to or stay in the United States".
In writing an opinion concurring with the decision to vacate the order, Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged Daniels' right to issue a nationwide injunction. They urged the Supreme Court to intervene at a "convenient time" to consider a case concerning the "escalation" of national injunctions.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to lift the nationwide injunction imposed by the NY trial judge, given that two appeals courts have come to the opposite conclusion.
"What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?"