根据下面资料，回答36-40题
The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump's administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump's ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.
The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.
Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".
After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels's injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.
These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch's eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump's first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".
Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch's reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that______

A the U.S. government is at liberty to reject most immigrants

B the revision of the original rule benefits more immigrants

C the newly permitted immigrants must be financially independent

D fewer immigrants are likely to be permitted to settle in America