Progressives troubled by the recent Supreme Court judgments are quick to call it partisan. But then how do they interpret the court’s decision to uphold Biden immigration policy despite legitimate concerns about border chaos?
Texas and Missouri objected to Mexico’s continuance in the cancellation and asked federal courts to reinstate it. The states claimed that the hasty repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires executive agencies to follow certain steps to justify their policy changes. He also argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act forces the administration to deport those who cross the border, with only rare exceptions.
Most of the judges disagreed, emphasizing the president’s wide latitude on immigration enforcement. Chief Justice Roberts argued for a majority that the law leaves the government with the final decision on which migrants to expel. He rejected Texas’ claim that evictions become mandatory when there is insufficient custodial capacity. “There is no such caveat in the statutory grant of discretion here,” he writing, “We wouldn’t rewrite it to include one.”
The court also ruled that Riemann’s forced reinstatement in Mexico would encroach on the president’s foreign-policy powers. This policy was the result of the Mexican government’s agreement to host immigrants from all over Central America. Being forced to keep that deal “would put a significant burden on the executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico,” the chief wrote. The Court similarly found that the administration approved procedural bars to eliminate the policy once the trial began, once it issued a more detailed cost-benefit analysis.
We read the statute differently, as we wrote in April, but the majority’s decision is a fair respect for the president’s authority, including the right to make apparently bad choices. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh’s decision in favor of the Administration is in line with the Court’s general respect for well-defined executive powers, particularly over foreign policy.
Disgruntled judges made a strong case that ending a stay in Mexico is an dereliction of duty to the government. Joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito rebuked the government for choosing to “leave untold numbers of aliens in this country” rather than remove them. Border states like Texas have been hurt by President Biden’s policy decision.
The ruling puts the limit back on the president for enforcement. Mr Biden sought to end an effective preventive policy, and he is also fighting to end Title 42, the pandemic emergency measure that also allows migrants to be deported. The High Court has not stood in their way. If the number of illegal crossings continues to rise – as predicted by his own administration – the president himself is to blame, assuming he cares, which we are not sure he does.
Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
opinion | Supreme Court upholds Biden’s border disturbance
A Venezuelan migrant family is seen beyond the concertina wire as they illegally cross the Rio Grande River at Eagle Pass, Texas, on the border with Mexico on June 30.
photo:
Chandan Khanna/Agence France-Press/Getty Images
Progressives troubled by the recent Supreme Court judgments are quick to call it partisan. But then how do they interpret the court’s decision to uphold Biden immigration policy despite legitimate concerns about border chaos?
In Biden v. Texas On Thursday, the court voted 5-4 to uphold the president’s decision to rescind the policy to stay in Mexico. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh join the three Liberals. President Trump launched the Migrant Protection Protocol program in 2019 to deport migrants from the US while their asylum claims are processed. This expelled thousands of border crossers, and possibly prevented many more from attempting the journey.
Texas and Missouri objected to Mexico’s continuance in the cancellation and asked federal courts to reinstate it. The states claimed that the hasty repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires executive agencies to follow certain steps to justify their policy changes. He also argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act forces the administration to deport those who cross the border, with only rare exceptions.
Most of the judges disagreed, emphasizing the president’s wide latitude on immigration enforcement. Chief Justice Roberts argued for a majority that the law leaves the government with the final decision on which migrants to expel. He rejected Texas’ claim that evictions become mandatory when there is insufficient custodial capacity. “There is no such caveat in the statutory grant of discretion here,” he writing, “We wouldn’t rewrite it to include one.”
The court also ruled that Riemann’s forced reinstatement in Mexico would encroach on the president’s foreign-policy powers. This policy was the result of the Mexican government’s agreement to host immigrants from all over Central America. Being forced to keep that deal “would put a significant burden on the executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico,” the chief wrote. The Court similarly found that the administration approved procedural bars to eliminate the policy once the trial began, once it issued a more detailed cost-benefit analysis.
We read the statute differently, as we wrote in April, but the majority’s decision is a fair respect for the president’s authority, including the right to make apparently bad choices. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh’s decision in favor of the Administration is in line with the Court’s general respect for well-defined executive powers, particularly over foreign policy.
Disgruntled judges made a strong case that ending a stay in Mexico is an dereliction of duty to the government. Joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito rebuked the government for choosing to “leave untold numbers of aliens in this country” rather than remove them. Border states like Texas have been hurt by President Biden’s policy decision.
The ruling puts the limit back on the president for enforcement. Mr Biden sought to end an effective preventive policy, and he is also fighting to end Title 42, the pandemic emergency measure that also allows migrants to be deported. The High Court has not stood in their way. If the number of illegal crossings continues to rise – as predicted by his own administration – the president himself is to blame, assuming he cares, which we are not sure he does.
Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8