Supreme Court rules for Biden immigration enforcement plan


The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key a part of President Biden’s plan for targeted immigration enforcement, ruling the administration may focus its efforts on arresting and deporting those that pose a current danger.

In a 8-1 decision, the justices said Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to sue for the enforcement policy.

Writing for the court, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said “the states essentially want the federal judiciary to order the manager branch to change its arrest policy in order to make more arrests. But this court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented alone.

The choice within the case of U.S. vs. Texas doesn’t involve the tens of 1000’s of migrants who arrive on the border or the tens of millions of those that live within the country without legal documentation.

As an alternative, it concerns immigrants with past crimes on their records and whether the federal government is required to hunt them out for arrest and deportation.

Republican state attorneys and the Democratic administration have been locked in a dispute over immigration enforcement. Last 12 months, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote refused to permit Biden’s immigration enforcement guidelines to take effect, however the justices agreed to listen to arguments on the legal dispute.

At issue is whether or not the law requires mandatory detention for immigrants who’ve a serious crime on their record or as a substitute allows the administration to give attention to arresting and deporting those that pose a current danger to public safety.

Often, immigrants serve years in state prisons for crimes corresponding to drug trafficking. Upon release, they might be taken into custody by federal immigration agents, but that just isn’t automatic.

Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said the federal government had no selection but to set priorities for enforcing the immigration laws.

“It’s well-established within the law that federal government officials have broad discretion to determine who must be subject to arrest, detainers, removal proceedings and the execution of removal orders,” he said last September. He said enforcement should give attention to “noncitizens who pose a current threat to public safety,” not all those that have a criminal record.

But Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton filed a suit contending the law required the federal government to arrest, detain and deport what Congress called “criminal aliens,” including those that had an “aggravated felony” on their record.

He filed his suit before U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee in Corpus Christi, Texas. The judge issued a nationwide order declaring the administration’s enforcement policy was illegal and will not be used.

The U.S. fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift the order in July of last 12 months, and the Supreme Court did the identical with its vote that month.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here