WASHINGTON — The U. S. Supreme Court has been sweeping the U. S. Supreme Court in the U. S The U. S. Department of Labor overwhelmingly ruled Friday that Texas and Louisiana lack the legal recourse to challenge the Biden administration’s deportation guidelines, giving the White House victory over immigration policy.
The states opposed the White House directive to the U. S. Department of Homeland Security. UU. de prioritize the arrest and deportation of non-citizens who have recently crossed the border clearance and non-citizens who pose a risk to public safety.
The White House sought the rules to be in position rather than focus on deporting the millions of undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for years, a departure from Trump-era politics.
In an 8-1 resolution in the U. S. UU. v. Texas, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion and called the lawsuit filed by Texas and Louisiana “an extreme trial. “
“They need a federal court that orders the executive branch to replace their arrest policies so they can make more arrests,” Kavanaugh wrote. .
An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States have lived in the country for years, if not decades. In DHS guidelines, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the company did not have the resources to deport all other undocumented people in the country.
Kavanaugh was joined through Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Judges Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also agreed, but for other reasons. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was the only dissenter.
“DHS hopes to reinstate those guidelines, which have been well enforced through U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The U. S. government has urged the U. S. to focus limited resources and enforcement movements on those that pose a risk to our national security, public safety and border security, Mayorkas said in a follow-up to the ruling.
“The rules allow DHS to better comply with its enforcement bill with the government and resources through Congress. “
State & Federal
During closing arguments in November, Judd Stone, the attorney general for the Texas attorney general’s office, argued that the federal government is bound by U. S. immigration law. The U. S. government will deport any undocumented immigrant, regardless of lack of resources.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, attorney general of the Justice Department, argued that the Biden administration’s memo forgets to implement the laws, but “prioritizes limited resources” in its enforcement efforts.
Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and director of the Office of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law, said in an interview with the state newsroom that the court’s ruling “certainly curbed the ability of states to sue the federal government. “government on immigration.
“We don’t know if the permanent principles enunciated through the Supreme Court will apply similarly in all long-term (cases) that states bring before the Supreme Court,” he said.
Lena Graber, senior counsel at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the resolution should “prevent states from suing the government when they don’t like a federal policy. “
Graber said the ruling affirms Biden’s management has “discretion over when to arrest or deport immigrants and when not to do so. “
“Now, the Biden administration wants to reinvest in prosecutorial discretion and prioritize ending immigration-related arrests, detentions and deportations,” Graber said. have in the communities. “
Agent Discretion
The rules were first issued in 2021, and the White House granted U. S. immigration and customs enforcement officials the right to do so. U. S. discretion as to whether enforcement action was necessary. ICE officials were asked to focus on non-citizens suspected of terrorism, who have already committed crimes or have recently been detained. on the edge.
“In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented non-citizens who may be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years,” according to the memo written through Mayorkas.
“They come with others who are on the front lines of the war on COVID, leading our religious congregations, training our children, making paintings of exhausting farms to help put food on our table, and contributing in so many other meaningful ways. “continued. . ” The fact that an individual is a non-citizen of a separable nature, therefore, does not in itself form the basis of the legal action opposing him. “
Texas filed a lawsuit and a Texas District Court ruled on the suspension of the policy by determining that it violated federal policy. Biden’s management appealed, but a panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals declined to do so. The U. S. District Court for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans issued a unanimous ruling of three decisions. He kept the blockade in place.
Biden’s administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block Texas Judge Drew B. ‘s decision. Tipton, appointed through Donald Trump. Then, the justices voted 5-4 to keep the policy on hold until the case can be heard. last year in court.
Jeremy McKinney, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said in an interview with States Newsroom that the Supreme Court’s ruling made clear that Texas did have standing.
He said eight justices agreed that the court simply cannot repair the damage, known as reparation, and that states lacked standing.
“They said the courts can’t solve this problem, Texas, it’s a political dispute, and that’s anything that’s resolved through political procedure and not in court,” he said.
McKinney added that the ruling may play into some other immigration-related case that will determine whether a program to protect other undocumented people brought to the country illegally will be protected.
These more than 500,000 undocumented people called Dreamers are lately waiting for a ruling from Texas on whether the deferred action for the arrival of children program is legal. It’s a case many immigration attorneys hope to see before the Supreme Court until 2024.
by Ariana Figueroa, Kentucky Lantern June 23, 2023
WASHINGTON — The U. S. Supreme Court has been sweeping the U. S. Supreme Court in the U. S The U. S. Department of Labor overwhelmingly ruled Friday that Texas and Louisiana lack the legal recourse to challenge the Biden administration’s deportation guidelines, giving the White House victory over immigration policy.
The states opposed the White House directive to the U. S. Department of Homeland Security. UU. de prioritize the arrest and deportation of non-citizens who have recently crossed the border clearance and non-citizens who pose a risk to public safety.
The White House sought the rules to be in position rather than focus on deporting the millions of undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for years, a departure from Trump-era politics.
In an 8-1 resolution in the U. S. UU. v. Texas, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion and called the lawsuit filed by Texas and Louisiana “an extreme trial. “
“They need a federal court that orders the executive branch to replace their arrest policies so they can make more arrests,” Kavanaugh wrote. .
An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States have lived in the country for years, if not decades. In DHS guidelines, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the company did not have the resources to deport all other undocumented people in the country.
Kavanaugh was joined through Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Judges Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also agreed, but for other reasons. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was the only dissenter.
“DHS hopes to reinstate those guidelines, which have been well enforced through U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The U. S. government has urged the U. S. to focus limited resources and enforcement movements on those that pose a risk to our national security, public safety and border security, Mayorkas said in a follow-up to the ruling.
“The rules allow DHS to better comply with its enforcement bill with the government and resources through Congress. “
State & Federal
During closing arguments in November, Judd Stone, the attorney general for the Texas attorney general’s office, argued that the federal government is bound by U. S. immigration law. The U. S. government will deport any undocumented immigrant, regardless of lack of resources.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, attorney general of the Justice Department, argued that the Biden administration’s memo forgets to implement the laws, but “prioritizes limited resources” in its enforcement efforts.
Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and director of the Office of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law, said in an interview with the state newsroom that the court’s ruling “certainly curbed the ability of states to sue the federal government. “government on immigration.
“We don’t know if the permanent principles enunciated through the Supreme Court will apply similarly in all long-term (cases) that states bring before the Supreme Court,” he said.
Lena Graber, senior counsel at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the resolution should “prevent states from suing the government when they don’t like a federal policy. “
Graber said the ruling affirms Biden’s management has “discretion over when to arrest or deport immigrants and when not to do so. “
“Now, the Biden administration wants to reinvest in prosecutorial discretion and prioritize ending immigration-related arrests, detentions and deportations,” Graber said. have in the communities. “
Agent Discretion
The rules were first issued in 2021, and the White House granted U. S. immigration and customs enforcement officials the right to do so. U. S. discretion as to whether enforcement action was necessary. ICE officials were asked to focus on non-citizens suspected of terrorism, who have already committed crimes or have recently been detained. on the edge.
“In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented non-citizens who may be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years,” according to the memo written through Mayorkas.
“They come with others who are on the front lines of the war on COVID, leading our religious congregations, training our children, making paintings of exhausting farms to help put food on our table, and contributing in so many other meaningful ways. “continued. . ” The fact that an individual is a non-citizen of a separable nature, therefore, does not in itself form the basis of the legal action opposing him. “
Texas filed a lawsuit and a Texas District Court ruled on the suspension of the policy by determining that it violated federal policy. Biden’s management appealed, but a panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals declined to do so. The U. S. District Court for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans issued a unanimous ruling of three decisions. He kept the blockade in place.
Biden’s administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block Texas Judge Drew B. ‘s decision. Tipton, appointed through Donald Trump. Then, the justices voted 5-4 to keep the policy on hold until the case can be heard. last year in court.
Jeremy McKinney, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said in an interview with States Newsroom that the Supreme Court’s ruling made clear that Texas did have standing.
He said eight justices agreed that the court simply cannot repair the damage, known as reparation, and that states lacked standing.
“They said the courts can’t solve this problem, Texas, it’s a political dispute, and that’s anything that’s resolved through political procedure and not in court,” he said.
McKinney added that the ruling may play into some other immigration-related case that will determine whether a program to protect other undocumented people brought to the country illegally will be protected.
These more than 500,000 undocumented people called Dreamers are lately waiting for a ruling from Texas on whether the deferred action for the arrival of children program is legal. It’s a case many immigration attorneys hope to see before the Supreme Court until 2024.
Kentucky Lantern belongs to States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported through grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c public charity (3). Kentucky Lantern maintains its editorial independence. Please contact editor Jamie Lucke if you have any questions: info@kentuckylantern. com. Follow Kentucky Lantern on Facebook and Twitter.
Ariana covers the nation’s capital for the States Newsroom. His policy spaces include politics and politics, lobbying, elections and crusading finance.
DEMOCRACY TOOLBOX
Independent and fact-based journalism.
Our stories can be republished online or published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0 license. We ask that you modify them to suit taste or shorten them, provide proper attribution and a link to our website.