Supreme Court Stays order blocking Trump anti refugee rule

Two days ago District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from implementing a rule that barred virtually all asylum applications by people crossing the southern border.  The new Interim Final Rule, issued July 16,  declared ineligible for asylum anyone entering via the southern border who did not apply for asylum in Mexico or other third country. Today the United States Supreme Court - over a strong dissent - has allowed the policy to proceed, staying the order below despite the abruptly issued Rule's plain inconsistency with the Asylum Act 8 USC 1158.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary explains the operation of the new Rule issued in July:

The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule at issue here on July 16, 2019. See 84 Fed. Reg. 33829. In effect, the rule forbids almost all Central Americans—even unaccompanied children—to apply for asylum in the United States if they enter or seek to enter through the southern border, unless they were first denied asylum in Mexico or another third country. Id., at 33835, 33840; see also 385 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929–930 (ND Cal. 2019).

The background is described in this AP report.  Justice Sotomayor, joined only by Ruth Ginsburg renounces the Rule in passionate terms:

Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law. After several organizations representing immigrants sued to stop the rule from going into effect, a federal district court found that the organizations were likely to prevail and preliminarily enjoined the rule nationwide,
A federal appeals court narrowed the injunction to run only circuit-wide, but denied the Government’s motion for a complete stay. Now the Government asks this Court to intervene and to stay the preliminary decisions below. This is an extraordinary request. Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces.

An Order lifting an injunction is supposed to be granted only when the equities tilt sharply in favor of the party seeking a stay - here the United States government.   That only the two most liberal justices dissented shows that the prospects for reinstating the injunction are dim.  When the issue finally reaches the Supreme Court it will undoubtedly have before it decisions by the two southern border courts: a pro-Trump administration ruling by the conservative Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the adverse opinion of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. - gwc