 |
| Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images |
Texas and Louisiana say government should pursue all people in U.S. illegally rather than targeting those who pose safety risks
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on the executive branch’s power to set priorities in enforcing immigration law, in a case that also tests the legal standing of states to bring their policy differences with Washington to court.
Last year, Texas and Louisiana sued to invalidate enforcement guidelines, issued by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, that give priority to the deportation of those immigrants illegally in the country who pose an imminent threat to national security or public safety. That approach replaced Trump-era policies that sought to have immigration officers remove any noncitizen present illegally.
The September 2021 guidelines target terrorists and others considered national-security threats and people convicted of serious crimes. They also put a priority on deporting those who entered the U.S. unlawfully since November 2020. The government argues they have to set priorities because the Department of Homeland Security lacks the resources to apprehend and detain all but a fraction of the more than 11 million noncitizens believed to be present unlawfully within the U.S.
A federal judge in Corpus Christi, Texas, sided with the states, focusing on language in immigration law stating that federal authorities “shall take into custody any alien” who meets broader criteria, including the commission of specified crimes.
On Tuesday, some conservative justices found that text compelling. “I think ‘shall’ means ‘shall,’ ” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
The administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, said pursuing a policy without targets would “absolutely scramble immigration enforcement efforts on the ground,” adding that there were cases in which the court interpreted the word “shall” as leaving some discretion for government officials. --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Credit: REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS |
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday indicated skepticism over a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to implement guidelines - challenged by two conservative-leaning states - shifting immigration enforcement toward countering public safety threats.
The justices were hearing arguments in the administration's request to overturn a judge's ruling in favor of Texas and Louisiana that vacated U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines narrowing the scope of those who can be targeted by immigration agents for arrest and deportation.
Texas and Louisiana argued that the guidelines ran counter to provisions in federal immigration law that make it mandatory to detain non-U.S. citizens who have been convicted of certain crimes or have final orders of removal.
The court on a 5-4 vote declined in July to put U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton's ruling hold. On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices who were in the majority in that decision signaled that they were likely to rule against the administration again.
"It's our job to say what the law is, not whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether there are difficulties there," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the administration, said such a strict reading of the law could be "incredibly destabilizing" because DHS cannot possibly with its limited resources apprehend and seek the removal of all of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally. --->READ MORE HEREFollow link below to a relevant story:
+++++Ketanji Brown Jackson swipes at Biden DOJ during SCOTUS immigration case+++++
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment