A judge has ruled that New York City can’t use a two-century-old “anti-pauper” law to block the state of Texas from offering migrants free bus rides to the city.

Summary

A New York judge dismissed Mayor Eric Adams’ lawsuit aimed at blocking Texas from sending migrants to NYC via charter buses, ruling that an 1817 anti-pauper law invoked by Adams was unconstitutional.

The court affirmed migrants’ right to interstate travel, rejecting efforts to screen passengers based on economic status.

Texas began bussing migrants to cities like NYC in 2022, escalating tensions over federal immigration policy.

Although NYC claimed the lawsuit reduced bus arrivals, officials are exploring further legal actions to address the financial strain on city resources.

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    54·
    3 days ago

    The court affirmed migrants’ right to interstate travel,

    Fun fact: this is an unenumerated right of the people that courts have consistently recognized. The tenth amendment promises that the people retain their natural rights, even if they’re not explicitly listed in the Constitution.

    This is exactly the same category as the right to privacy that was postulated in Roe v. Wade and overturned in Dobbs.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 days ago

        Fine.

        Although the tenth does end with

        …are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
    30·
    3 days ago

    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.

    Okay, but we’re not talking about people with informed consent here. Texas has been misleading or lying to people to get them on these buses.

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
    181·
    3 days ago

    “You are not allowed to use the law to block human trafficking” - A judge in the US

    I’m not saying laws are inherently just and good, this just isn’t a good look.

    On par, though.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      3·
      1 day ago

      No, you misunderstand. This doesn’t have anything to do with human trafficking.

      This judge would allow any criminal behavior, so long as it benefits Republicans.

    • Joeffect@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 days ago

      Like it’s a law you shouldn’t be able to pick when it best applies to you… If it’s a dumb law and it no longer is applicable then like get rid of it. But if the law is there then it should be followed…

      This whole election is eye opening and yeah