Trump trumps the judge, and it’s an instant classic

 Haha.  This is great.

Back in January, President Trump and his State Department instituted a freeze on visas from 75 countries likely to import public charges to our shores.  It took a while for it to work its way through the court system, then finally on August 21st, a Biden-appointed judge struck it down for the usual ridiculous reasons.

Okay, said Trump, five days later, I’ll see your 75 countries and raise you 120 more, and freeze visas globally.

Take that, he effectively said.  Take that, and I dare you to tell me a president lacks the authority to do it. G’head you pointy-headed progressive. The president has near plenary power to deny first time visa applicants entry onto our shores (emphasis added).

In an essence, the so-called ‘plenary power doctrine’ theoretically shields any legislative or executive actions related to immigration law from judicial review. Understanding the role of deference in immigration law requires explaining the concept of deference generally and briefly retelling the history of the doctrine. Since its origins in the nineteenth century, the plenary power doctrine has taken on different meanings: initially, it meant absolute federal power over borders, as well as the nonjusticiability of challenges to immigration law, under a string of cases, first established in Chae Chan Ping. Through the twentieth century, it evolved from strict nonjusticiability to a highly deferential standard of review. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that it will uphold decisions excluding noncitizens from entry so long as the government advances a ‘facially legitimate and bona fide’ reason for the exclusion. While developments in constitutional law over the last century have eroded the plenary power doctrine’s scope, especially as to procedural due process claims and challenges to indefinite detention, courts have not extended these developments to first-time visa applicants with no existing ties to the United States.

A reminder, via Fox:

A public-charge determination can make an immigrant visa applicant inadmissible under federal immigration law if officials determine the person is likely to become dependent on certain forms of public assistance after arriving in the U.S.

 

That’s right.  Fox remembered, but everyone else, including this judge, appears to have forgotten a 1996 law which passed under the last even minimally rational Democrat President, Bill Clinton. And was, for all intents and purposes, upheld under Trump 1.0.

From a 2020 article in, of all places, The Cape Cod Times, entitled “‘Public charge’ law is nothing new; Clinton signed similar bill in 1996”:

This is existing law. The Immigration Service is required to deny those who may become a ‘public charge’ from permanent legal residency. 

The new [2020] regulation would broaden that definition to include anyone who receives more than an aggregate of 12 months in a 36- month period, and also expands what constitutes being a public charge to include things like housing assistance via a voucher or food assistance via food stamp programs.

 

There are other unenforced laws on the books. Federal agencies are also being instructed to begin enforcement of a 1996 law signed by President Clinton that requires the sponsors of green card holders to reimburse the federal government for welfare and other benefits received.

Trump is perfectly within his rights here, and when lawfare appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly happen, Supreme Court precedent should slap them back good and hard.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played.

M. Walter blogs at www.mwalterwriter.com where you can find The Lunatic Left Series, a daily snapshot of Democrat words and deeds so you can see what they’re up to without having to go hip-deep in their toxic brew. You’re welcome ;)

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/08/trump-trumps-the-judge-and-it-s-an-instant-classic/