In a surprise ruling sure to set immigration lawyers’ hair on fire everywhere, mine included, the Supreme Court today issued a stay of a New York district court’s preliminary injunction against the tough new Public Charge rule that the Trump Administration originally slated for implementation on October 15, 2019.

In other words, the new Public Charge rule may now be implemented by the Department of Homeland Security in all states nationwide except Illinois (don’t ask).  Expect a DHS notice within 24 hours that will provide a date on which the new rule is expected to take effect, likely within 60 days or less, perhaps much sooner.

(Anybody have a fire extinguisher?)

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari (‘cert’) to the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Court cases addressing President Trump’s proposed 90 travel ban for Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. This means that the Supreme Court will hear arguments and issue what is expected to be a major ruling on the president’s executive powers as they apply to controlling U.S. immigration.

The hearings and decision will be made in the Court’s next term, commencing October 1, 2017.

The Supreme Court’s order granting cert ruled in part that the government’s request to ‘stay’ (a legal term meaning ‘suspend until further ruling’) the lower circuit court injunctions is upheld to the extent the travel ban applies to individuals from the six countries who have no bona fide connection to the United States.

“We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions” blocking the implementation of the travel ban “to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)” – referring to the Executive Order provision suspending entry from six countries – “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

“Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. . . So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of Section 2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.”