It seems New York City sued bus companies for busing thousands of "migrants" to the city from Texas, using an almost two-century-old statute as the foundation of its argument. It didn't work.
The court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by Mayor Eric Adams in January against charter bus companies contracted by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. It sought to bar them from knowingly dropping off “needy persons,” citing an 1817 state law that criminalized bringing an indigent person into the state “for the purpose of making him a public charge.”
Justice Mary Rosado said in a sternly worded decision that the law is unconstitutional for several reasons.
For one, she wrote, states are not permitted to regulate the interstate transportation of people based on their economic status.
The statute also “violates a fundamental right — the right to travel,” she added.
. . .
It would have been difficult for New York City to sue Texas due to a legal doctrine known as sovereign immunity, so it went after the private charter companies instead.
Despite the court loss, the Adams administration said the lawsuit has had its desired effect: Fewer charter buses brought immigrants to the city after it was filed, and none have been identified since June, according to a statement from his office. Adams has not given up on further action, either.
“We are reviewing our legal options to address the costs shifted to New York City as a result of the Texas busing scheme,” mayoral spokesperson Liz Garcia said in a statement.
There's more at the link.
The suit was brought in a state court, too, not a federal court, so (to me) that makes the strong anti-NYC finding of the judge more surprising. State courts are notorious for giving deference to local and regional statutes, laws and regulations, with many cases having to be taken to Federal courts for rulings on their constitutionality. I guess the issues were clear enough in this one that the judge had no problem ruling the statute unconstitutional.
Now that the Biden administration will shortly be replaced by the Trump administration, one wonders what will happen to the whole issue of transporting migrants. I imagine buying them a bus ticket to the nearest border crossing might be a lot cheaper than sending them up the length of the country!
Peter
10 comments:
Past history as shown that putting someone across the nearest border makes it easy for them to come back.
Eisenhower's big deportation tried that, it didn't work so they put them on ships and took them further south. He showed that large numbers of immigrants CAN be deported.
Jonathan
Definitely will be interesting!
Cut ALL the benefits: birthright citizenship, free ER, public school, obozo phone, debit card, section 8, HUD house, food stamps...
AND THEY WILL SELF-DEPORT!
From a practical standpoint, I believe that there's a good case for making this offer: If you aren't here legally, get yourself to any border on your own, and just before you cross out of the USA, we'll (1) give you $500 cash, and (2) take retinal scans and a DNA sample. Come back and you get thrown into a work camp for life. It would probably be more cost-effective than paying the authorities to chase the huge numbers that have only been here a short time, allowing them to focus on the few that need to be thrown out.
Oops - forgot to put my name to the previous comment - Steve O
Wasn't new york one of the states sued by Texas for election shenanigans, then told they had no standing?
If NYS had sued George Soros for providing money to aid the border crossers in the first place, New York might have won its case
When New York ADVERTISED themselves as a place welcoming illegals, they pretty much shot their argument down.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
We don't need to spend billions of dollars and activate the military. TURN OFF THE EBT CARDS... they'll go home!
The only reason most of them are here, is the free ride. And frankly if you're here to work and build a better life for your family, you're welcome here! Just pay your damned taxes.
Yeah, funny innit?
Sadly, it was a federal court that told the State of Texas it had no standing contesting the results of another State's elections.
On the one hand, I do see the argument - imagine if California started suing everybody b/c they didn't like their elections? Right?
But to suggest there is 'no-standing' implies no harm has been done, which is patently false. If you accept the results from the election were tainted, then the electoral votes were also, and the proper candidate did not ascend to office. While it may be hard to quantify harm done, you can't argue no harm exists - we are being ruled by a candidate that was not elected. The harm is incalcuable.
The judiciary has become corrupted by politics. Same as the media.... This is a significant problem.
Post a Comment