During a hearing for a lawsuit brought by two Republican attorneys general who claimed that the Department of Homeland Security is breaking federal immigration laws, the Biden administration was questioned about its perceived authority to prioritize which individuals in the country illegally to deport first.
The nation’s top court is reportedly debating three problems that are unique to the case, but after hearing oral arguments, it was unclear which way the justices might vote. Louisiana and Texas filed the lawsuit.
A September 2021 memo from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, which reversed efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations, set priorities for the arrest, detention, and deportation of specific non-citizens, according to CNN, which added:
On a crucial threshold question, whether Texas and Louisiana had the legal authority to file the case in the first place, a number of the conservative justices on Tuesday appeared prepared to decide in favor of the states.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly emphasized that the law states that some immigrants “shall” be detained or expelled from the country when discussing whether the DHS guidelines were in conflict with two provisions of federal law, which seemed to indicate they were leery of the department’s presumed discretion.
Said Roberts, “Shall means shall.” He said, “Shouldn’t we just say what we think the law is?” implying that other branches should handle this.”fix that up.”
After a district court judge blocked the DHS’s discretion in the matter, the Supreme Court accepted the case
Using the terms “discretion” and “prioritization,” Trump appointee U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas declared that the Executive Branch had the power to suspend statutory mandates. “This strategy is not permitted by the law.”
The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in July after a federal appeals court declined to stay the lower court’s decision. The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to uphold the lower court’s decision until the case is finally decided on its merits. At the time, the court’s three liberal justices and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined forces to rule inThe Biden administration was in favor at the time, but no justification was given.
The Republic Brief goes on to say:
The Court is posing three important questions, as Amy Howe of the SCOTUS Blog pointed out. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants are being questioned by the SCOTUS on the legal standing of the states. The Biden administration claims that the states lack legal standing because they have not been harmed by the federal government, but the states counter that they must pay out more money for public benefits and other expenses as a result of the presence of more immigrants in their state.
Past Trump adviser Stephen Miller stated in April that President Joe Biden’s reversals of his predecessor’s policies produced turmoil at the U.S.-Mexico border and are “impeachable” since they were heavily focused on the former administration’s immigration requirements.
In a Fox News interview, Miller claimed that Biden had “rubbished and wrecked” the country’s immigration laws, calling his handling of the issue “absolutely impeachable.”
Miller objected, saying “What this president has done is he has reduced Congress to nothing more than a suggestion box.”
“This president has trashed the entire Immigration and Nationality Act, which regulates who can enter our nation, how visa applications are made, what requirements must be met, and where applications must be made, as if he were the emperor. Therefore, it is totally rebuttable, he continued.
In each of the litigation against his policies that my organization has been a part of, Miller said, “we lay out how he has broken the unambiguous command of Congress and the clear command of the Constitution.”
“We won one of those lawsuits on Title 42 that we litigated in collaboration with Texas. He has also been found to have repeatedly broken the law with regard to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In light of the fact that he has disobeyed court orders even after losing these lawsuits, it is clear that these crimes are impeachable, Miller said.