Supreme Court hands Biden narrow win on immigration enforcement
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
John FritzeUSA TODAY
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed President Joe Biden a narrow win Friday in a major immigration case, ruling that Republican officials in two states who challenged the president's effort to prioritize some unauthorized immigrants for arrest and detention over others did not have standing to sue.
The 8-1 decision was a rare win for Biden at the conservative Supreme Court and it may have implications for state challenges to policies adopted by future presidents. But the legal questions involved in the case are separate from the crisis that have unfolded earlier this year on the Southwest border.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a five justice majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion that agreed with the final outcome but for different reasons.
Justice Samul Alito dissented.
The states, Kavanaugh wrote, "want a federal court to order the executive branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally not entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the states cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this."
At issue was a Biden memorandum from 2021 that focused enforcement on immigrants who pose a threat to national security, public safety or who recently crossed the border. The administration says it wanted to prioritize those immigrants because it doesn't have the resources to remove everyone in the country illegally. Texas and Louisiana said federal law gives Biden less discretion to pick and choose enforcement targets.
In his dissent, Alito wrote that Biden's policy "inflicts substantial harm on the state and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes."
A 5-4 majority of the court put the policy on hold in July as it considered the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a five-justice majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion that agreed with the final outcome. Justice Samul Alito dissented.
Though the policy was at the heart of the case, the justices spent just as much time during the November oral arguments debating whether the states were able to sue and what power lower courts have to block such policies. Those questions may be particularly important for a president operating with a divided and gridlocked Congress.
Biden's attorneys questioned whether Texas and Louisiana should be allowed to sue. The states claim the immigration policy forced them to spend more money but critics have said the states have sought to increase their populations and that the same costs - such as for public education - would rise with an influx of non-immigrants as well.
Biden laid out his immigration priorities in a Department of Homeland Security memorandum in 2021. But the states said federal immigration law demands more than Biden's approach: It requires the government to arrest and detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes, such as aggravated felonies or human trafficking.
A federal district court in Texas sided with the states and halted the policy's enforcement. A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit - all three of whom were nominated by GOP presidents - declined to put the district court's ruling on hold. Biden then filed an emergency request in July asking the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit's decision.
In July, a 5-4 majority of the court declined Biden's request, barring his ability to carry out the policy. But the court also agreed to hear arguments, shifting the case off its emergency docket and delving more deeply into the merits of the legal questions.
The high court had been set to hear another immigration case in March about whether the government could continue to rapidly expel migrants under the pandemic-era Title 42 program. But after Biden announced he would end the emergency declarations tied to COVID-19, the court removed the case from its calendar.
Biden's lawyers argued the administration doesn't have the resources to do what the states are asking: DHS has about 6,000 interior enforcement officers to deal with more than 11 million people in the country illegally. The administration's priorities don't reduce enforcement, the government argued, but rather focus it on the worst offenders.
"If you prevail here, what will happen?" Kavanaugh asked the attorney for Texas. "That's a concern because I'm not sure much will change because they don't have the resources to change."
But Chief Justice John Roberts at times seemed to press an opposing view.
"It's our job to say what the law is, not whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether there are difficulties there." he said in November. "And I don't think we should change that responsibility just because Congress and the executive can't agree on something that's possible to address this problem."
Featured Weekly Ad
Tags
Who is online
197 visitors
Once again the Supreme Court reiterates the executive branch has the authority to prioritize how it carries out its duties. Because they don't prioritize what YOU want them to, doesn't mean they are not following the law or derelict in their duties. YOU CAN however criticize the government and their choices, but be smart about it, please.
NOTE: I leave work at noon (central time) on Fridays and I don't come back until Monday. I spend enough time on my laptop at work I don't need to spend more time arguing with you guys. Try and be nicer to each other or I'll lock the article.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
It would be easier for people to understand this stuff if there weren't so much stupid in what I call The Outrage Machine of the internet.
Every minute of every day, you'd think that the Outrage Machine would need a break, but no it just keeps rolling along.
Clicks are money! Outrage sells. My newsfeed is mostly filled with asinine celebrity doings and political outrage. There are less than a half dozen articles a week that might be interesting where I learn something.
... driven by internet popularity.
Another tough day for for the Supreme Court is illegitimate and does whatever the republicans want crowd. It’s almost as if the law matters and “conservative” justices do their best to apply it, even if it contradicts their policy preferences.
I don’t think progressives can wrap their heads around that concept. Since they, if given the chance, would simply impose their personal preferences and can’t imagine others acting differently.
And I'm sure sometime next week or the week after I'll hear again how Biden is breaking the law by not doing the Republican outrage issue du jour. Partisans being all partisan and shit.
This court case was all about deep red states wanting to impose their will on the Feds.
I am sure we will hear from the leftist mouth breathers who seem to always be out of breath that those Republicans demanding our immigration laws actually be enforced are Nazis, Fascists, etc.
Which, according to the court ruling, will have to be decided at the ballot box. Which means that enforcing our borders and illegal immigration just moved back up ranking for what is important to voters. Maybe AOC and the squad can get together for another staged faux cry fest at a border detention center.
They irony is so think in this post.
As it always is.
According to exit polls in the mid-terms it was well below the economy and abortion.
Maybe Boebert and Co can have another presser and push another bill to impeach Biden again, since this week's try went so well.
Do you NOT see how this tit-for-tat partisans bullshit keeps playing out? Do you not understand as long as partisans keep cheering the Boeberts and AOCs we never get anything fixed?
Wow, what is the name of that group and is the group on NT?
mackerel snappers...
So . . . We shouldn’t prioritize deporting such people? National security shouldn’t be a high priority? Public safety isn’t a high priority? They’d rather we chase entrenched families with jobs and connections as opposed to deporting new arrivals who aren’t dug in yet?
I just don’t understand the objection to what seems like an entirely reasonable policy that conservatives should be supporting.
Well, if you’re so certain these people are out there, go arrest them. Why wouldn’t you? The federal government may have jurisdiction over immigration, but there’s nothing stopping local cops from arresting someone they suspect of having committed an aggravated felony or human trafficking.
Or . . . Try proposing a program where you work together with federal resources to hunt down these dangerous people. Unless you’re more interested in politics than in addressing the problem.
Think of it as an opportunity to stop harassing/tazing/shooting citizens who aren’t that dangerous and instead stick it to them dirty feriners.