The U.S. Supreme Court is set to “weigh the executive branch’s authority to set immigration policy as some red states claim that the Biden administration’s enforcement decisions are too lax,” according to SCOTUSblog.
In a 5-4 decision, the divided court declined to reinstate Biden’s immigration guidelines and set the case for argument this fall.
Biden loses at Supreme Court 5-4 on important illegal immigration case…
Divided court declines to reinstate Biden’s immigration guidelines, sets case for argument this fall https://t.co/oJwMwFIXVI
— Gaberz_3.0 🍊 (@G_lame3) July 22, 2022
“The justices on Thursday agreed to take up a challenge by Texas and Louisiana to a new federal policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation,” the report added.
Trending: Ilhan Omar Voted Out Today?
The high court will hear the case in November without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule.
The justices left in place a district-court ruling striking down the policy, which means that the Biden administration cannot implement it while it waits for the Supreme Court to hear argument and issue a decision.
In a 5-4 vote, the justices rejected the administration’s request to put the district court’s ruling on hold and allow the administration to implement the policy while litigation proceeds. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated that they would have granted the request. It was the first recorded vote for Jackson, who was sworn in as the court’s newest justice on June 30 to succeed the now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer.
The policy at the center of the dispute is outlined in a September 2021 memorandum by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on the federal government’s priorities for immigration enforcement. Explaining that there are over 11 million noncitizens currently in the United States who could be subject to deportation, but that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them, the memorandum instructed immigration officials to prioritize the apprehension and deportation of three groups of noncitizens: suspected terrorists, people who have committed serious crimes, and those caught at the border.
Texas and Louisiana went to federal court in Texas to challenge the policy. U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton vacated the policy on June 10, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the Biden administration’s request to put Tipton’s ruling on hold while it appeals.
FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) told The Center Square: “The Biden Administration’s move to severely limit immigration enforcement was another in a long line of decisions that sought to worsen – not fix – historic levels of illegal immigration into our country.”
FAIR told @thecentersquare “The Biden administration's move to severely limit immigration enforcement was another in a long line of decisions that sought to worsen – not fix – historic levels of illegal immigration into our country.” @BethanyBlankley https://t.co/uAtrDOdtEc
— FAIR (@FAIRImmigration) July 22, 2022
From The Center Square:
The lower district court’s nationwide injunction preventing DHS from enforcing its more lax deportation policies remains in effect.
After the decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Texas is handing [President Joe] Biden so many huge loses. First Biden tells DHS they don’t have to detain criminal illegals. Court strikes down. Biden appeals. Loses. Biden goes to SCOTUS. Just now, loses again! Feds MUST detain illegals. I’ll keep fighting in court until they do their job!”
At issue is DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas altering the enforcement of federal immigration law regarding deportation through the issuance of memorandums and directives. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry sued, arguing they violate federal law established by Congress, including the Administrative Procedures Act.
In June, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton issued a nationwide injunction halting the policy, ruling it was “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and failing to observe procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act.” He also denied all other requested relief brought by the administration.