Some conservatives in court asked the administration difficult questions and offered sympathy for the lower court’s opposition to President Joe Biden.
Judge Samuel Alito at one point hinted that the lower courts were right to accept that Trump’s program might be necessary to comply with immigration law. And Judge Clarence Thomas suggested that the government has limited discretion to release those on parole.
But Chief Justice John Roberts expressed sympathy for the government’s argument that it wanted to end a program proposed by the previous administration. He seemed puzzled as to how to deal with the lower court’s interpretations of the immigration law to require a program – or similar.
– What should we do? He asked.
Meanwhile, the court’s three Liberals backed the Biden administration, arguing that requiring the program to remain in place would have severe diplomatic consequences. Until the end of the debate, it was unclear whether there were five votes in favor of Biden’s position.
Judge Elena Kagan is worried about diplomatic concerns if the court asks the Biden administration to continue implementing a program so dependent on Mexican co-operation. She said such a decision would put the United States at the mercy of “Mexico” and that they could change their decision at any time to change the conditions.
When a Texas lawyer defending the Trump-era program suggested that diplomatic relations would not be at stake, Kagan said: “What should we do? Do we drive trucks of people in Mexico without negotiating?
Under an unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security has sent some non-Mexican citizens who entered the United States back to Mexico – instead of detaining or releasing them to the United States – while their immigration procedures are underway.
Critics call the policy inhumane and say it exposes asylum seekers to credible claims of dangerous and bad conditions. The migrants who are the subject of the program – officially known as the Protocols for the Protection of Migrants – have been in makeshift camps on Mexico’s northern border.
Staying in Mexico is separate from the public health authority, known as Title 42, which allows border guards to return encountered migrants to the border, thus prohibiting them from seeking asylum, as opposed to “staying in Mexico”, which still gives migrants this chance. (Title 42 is the subject of separate legal disputes; a federal judge temporarily blocked it on Monday, ending that power.)
Tuesday’s case and the political repercussions of the Biden administration’s efforts to end Title 42 next month have once again highlighted the White House’s politically precarious situation and the tough battles the White House is facing in court.
While Biden himself promised to end the “Stay in Mexico” program after taking office, he was blocked by federal courts.
The case raises questions not only about immigration law, but also the president’s control over politics and diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.
“The future president will not have the power to implement his own agenda and millions of asylum seekers will be left vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking until their rights are denied due process,” said Loyola Law School professor Sabrina Talukder, who signed a report in support of the Biden administration, CNN said.
Biden’s Home Office initially issued a memorandum to end the program last June. But after two states – Texas and Missouri – challenged, a district judge released the note and ordered the policy to be reinstated.
The court said the administration did not adequately explain the decision-making process in an attempt to end the program in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Going a step further, the court also interpreted immigration law to require DHS to return certain non-citizens to Mexico when there were not enough funds to keep them on American soil, despite years of discretion that allowed authorities to decide who to release. or detain.
DHS tried again last fall, issuing a new note offering a more comprehensive explanation of its decision to terminate the program, but an appeals court eventually upheld the district court’s decision and refused to even consider the reasons set out in the new note, suggesting that it came too late.
“In this case, the lower courts have adopted unprecedented restrictions on the ability of federal agencies to change their policies and issue new decisions in response to unfavorable court decisions,” Andrew J. said in an interview. Pinkus, a lawyer at Mayer Brown LLP.
“If confirmed by the court, they will drastically limit the decision-making of government agencies,” he added.
As of April 17, more than 2,300 migrants had been sent back to Mexico under the Stay in Mexico policy after it was renewed late last year, according to the International Organization for Migration.
Interpretation of immigration law
Judges focused on various provisions of immigration law. One section states that the Department of Homeland Security “must” detain non-citizens pending immigration proceedings, while another provision provides that the Secretary may “return” certain non-citizens.
Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar told judges on Tuesday that lower courts had relied on misinterpretations of federal law to force DHS to maintain a program the administration has twice tried to end. She said the Biden administration had the legal authority to end the program and said the benefits outweighed “its domestic humanitarian and foreign policy costs”.
She said the Homeland Security Minister “should be allowed to finally implement his political decision” and that the breadth of lower-level opinions suggested that something had gone “wrong”.
Prelogar said the law offers the government alternative options for processing candidates, noting that some may be admitted “conditionally” and others may be placed in a process of expedited removal. She noted that in fiscal 2021, DHS processed more than 671,000 migrants under traditional immigration protocols, an average of more than 55,000 per month.
She also claims that the opinion of the lower court will have “dramatic consequences for foreign relations”, as it forces the executive to send those from third countries to Mexico – the territory of a foreign sovereign.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, joined by Missouri Attorney General Eric S. Schmidt, called on the Supreme Court to confirm the lower court’s views. He said the Trump administration had launched the program because “tens of thousands of aliens enter the nation’s southern border illegally every month.”
Add Comment