From the beginning of his administration, Biden sought to stifle policy, sending some non-Mexican citizens who had entered the United States back to Mexico – instead of detaining them or releasing them into the United States – where their immigration activities took place. Out.
Judgment 5-4 was, and immigration law gives the federal government the option to terminate the program, formally known as the Immigrant Protection Protocol. The case will go back to the lower courts for further action on his recent attempt to bring the project to an end. There is a hurdle in Biden’s attempt to complete the project, but Thursday’s ruling suggested that the order should be revoked soon.
In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that the relevant immigration law ” Optional The power to repatriate aliens to Mexico while their settlement activities are pending. “
The use of the word “May” in the legal question “makes it clear that continuous-territorial return (DHS) is a tool for the Secretary to have ‘authority but not duty,’ ‘Roberts wrote.
The Supreme Court decision is a major victory for the Biden immigration agenda, as the administration has suffered a number of losses in the lower courts in its efforts to change Trump’s drastic immigration policies. Many Red States, which have challenged the suspension of immigration protection policies, have filed lawsuits against Biden’s other attempts to break away from his predecessor’s aggressive approach.
Roberts was joined by Liberal judges and Judge Brett Kavanagh, and Kavanagh filed a concurring opinion. Judges Samuel Alito and Amy Connie Barrett wrote dissenting opinions, along with other protesters.
The court ruled that the lower courts should now consider whether the government complies with the latest law – the Biden administration, in a note issued in October – to end Trump’s term policy.
Biden’s attempt to halt the project was challenged in a Texas-led Red States Coalition court, arguing that its conclusion was illegal under immigration law. They also argued that the administration was violating the Code of Conduct – that agencies should take certain practical steps when implementing the policy – and how it broke down immigration protection ethics.
The lower courts, which refused to consider the October memo, will now examine whether the latest attempt to end the plan is in line with administrative procedure law.
Roberts writes that the government’s authority to release certain immigrants on parole, rather than detaining them or deporting them to Mexico, is not “unlimited,” while Immigration Law requires that parole be used “on a case-by-case basis.”
“And under the APA, the exercise of discretion within that legal framework (of the Department of Homeland Security) must be fair and equitable,” Roberts said.
Citing a court ruling on Thursday, he said the lower court had failed to prevent Biden’s plan from being stopped.
The courts under the next round of lawsuits over “stay in Mexico” will not have the power to block Biden’s attempt to complete the project, but it is not immediately clear whether management will be able to complete the policy immediately.
Having jurisdiction under the judiciary could prevent future attempts to challenge the immigration policies of Democratic and Republican administrations in court — meaning that immigration rights activists may have had short-term success with Thursday’s ruling, while experiencing long-term setbacks. .
“We are pleased that today’s decision will put an end to the brutal and inhumane remnant program in Mexico. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director for the U.S. Immigration Council, said in a statement. “Limiting access to justice to challenge immigration enforcement cases sets a dangerous precedent by giving agencies the unfettered power to arrest, detain and deport.”
The plan, first implemented in 2019 under then-President Donald Trump, has been criticized by immigration-rights advocates, arguing that it is inhumane and exposing asylum seekers to dangerous and abusive conditions in Mexico with credible claims.
Before the Trump administration implemented the “Stay in Mexico” program, no other administration had adopted such an approach to non-Mexican asylum seekers. Biden campaigned for an end to the policy, saying it was “against all that we stand for as a nation of immigrants.”
In the midst of massive migrations in the Western Hemisphere, Biden struggled with increasing border crossings during his administration. Since October, border officials have met with more than a million immigrants on the U.S.-Mexico border, although many have been deported under a separate epidemic-emergency rule. However, the Department of Homeland Security maintains that the “stay in Mexico” policy is at a steep human cost and that resources are not being used effectively.
Immigration rights lawyers celebrated the verdict Thursday. Taylor Levy, an immigration lawyer who has worked on hundreds of MPP cases, said in a statement that “the success of the tens of thousands of people who have stayed in Mexico has been unimaginable.”
Judy Rabinowitz, special adviser to the ACLU’s Immigration Rights Program, said in the statement that once the case returned to the lower court, the Biden administration could move quickly to finally end its “stay in Mexico”. The result has been long and unjustly delayed. “
According to the Biden Justice Department, the relevant immigration law has not previously explained the need to deport migrants to Mexico.
“Every presidential administration understands this to be a completely discretionary authority.
He also argued that the practice of “staying in Mexico” would not solve the essential problem: Congress had advised immigration officials to detain asylum seekers.
“Returning to continuous territory could not be the solution here,” Preloger said, adding that while the Trump administration was implementing the policy, only 6.5% of the immigrants encountered at the border were enrolled in the program.
“It has inherent restrictions,” Preloger said, pointing to the purchase of a sovereign nation, Mexico.
In his collaboration, Kavanagh denounced the “decades-old inability of political branches to provide the DHS with adequate facilities to keep non-citizens seeking to enter the United States pending their immigration activities.”
In a joint disagreement with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Korsch, he wrote that the government was “trying to free an unspeakable number of foreigners into this country.”
“This practice violates the clear provisions of the law, but the court sees it differently,” he wrote.
Judge Amy Connie Barrett, along with three other opponents, wrote a dissenting opinion, saying she did not believe the lower courts had the power to reach the underlying legal questions in the case.
Biden first tried to suspend the plan on his inauguration day in 2021, which sparked a lawsuit by the Red States. That June, DHS Secretary Alejandro Myorgos issued a note formally ending the policy – but a federal judge in Texas blocked the move in August. A few days later the Supreme Court refused to set aside that judgment, and the appeal was over, requiring Biden to effectively renew “stay in Mexico.”
In October, Mayerkas released a new memo seeking to address the procedural shortcomings mentioned in the district court’s August judgment. Whether the October Memo overturned previous rulings by finding that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not do so is a matter of controversy in lower court proceedings.
The policy was relaunched last December. The International Organization for Migration says more than 5,000 immigrants have returned to Mexico under the program. Nicaragua, Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela are among the national races listed in the program.
The most important issue in the case is the amount of will left to the executive branch by immigration laws, which have been amended on several occasions in the last century. A rule of law states that asylum seekers’ claims are still “verified” and those actions are pending.
Another rule adopted in 1996 stated that immigrants could “return” to the federal government, which is still waiting for their operations in the territory in which they entered. Another rule states that, based on “every case,” immigration officials may release on immigrant pending trial.
Opponents of the Biden administration in this case have argued that the administration should release immigrants on parole, which goes beyond the “case-by-case” outline outlined in the law.
“Petitioners do not want to choose from the options provided by Congress — that is, detention, parole, or deportation of a closed alien,” Texas said succinctly. “They are instead seeking the power of the United States to liberate the alien classes en masse.”
This story has been updated with additional information.