The Supreme Court's stunning, radical immigration decision, explained

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Ian Millhiser
@imillhiser
Here's my writeup of the truly awful decision that the Supreme Court handed down. One of the most radical decisions of my lifetime.

The Supreme Court’s stunning, radical immigration decision, explained
The Court’s decision on Trump’s "Remain in Mexico" policy upends decades of precedent warning that judges shouldn’t mess with foreign affairs.
vox.com
6:48 PM · Aug 24, 2021

https://www.vox.com/2021/8/24/22640424/supreme-court-remain-in-mexico-trump-biden-samuel-alito-immigration


The Supreme Court handed down an order Tuesday evening that makes no sense.

It is not at all clear what the Biden administration is supposed to do in order to comply with the Court’s decision in Biden v. Texas. That decision suggests that the Department of Homeland Security committed some legal violation when it rescinded a Trump-era immigration policy, but it does not identify what that violation is. And it forces the administration to engage in sensitive negotiations with at least one foreign government without specifying what it needs to secure in those negotiations.

One of the most foundational principles of court decisions involving foreign policy is that judges should be extraordinarily reluctant to mess around with foreign affairs. The decision in Texas defies this principle, fundamentally reshaping the balance of power between judges and elected officials in the process.

The central issue in Texas is the Biden administration’s decision to terminate former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required many asylum seekers arriving at the United States’ southern border to stay in Mexico while they awaited a hearing on their asylum claim. Although the policy was formally ended under Biden, it hasn’t been in effect since March 2020, when the federal government imposed heightened restrictions on border crossings due to Covid-19.

Nevertheless, a Trump-appointed judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, ordered the Biden administration to reinstate the policy, and he gave the administration exactly one week to do so. The Supreme Court’s order effectively requires the administration to comply with Kacsmaryk’s order, at least for now, with one vague and confusing modification.

*snip*

[leftstreet]

1. Trump's (McConnell's) judges flexing their muscles

and so it begins

[UTUSN]

2. Teh BARRETT bided her time, dropping "tolerant" crumbs until the Big cases came.

Every time she had a rational sounding judgment (did anybody believe it?) it was just to build up a bit of cred as a judicious non partisan yeah-right. A better question than did anybody believe it is: Do wingnuts think they fool anybody?

[elleng]

3. Supreme Court Allows Revival of Trump-Era 'Remain in Mexico' Asylum Policy.

The court’s unsigned order refused to stay a ruling from a federal judge in Texas forbidding the Biden administration from ending the policy.

*The court’s brief unsigned order said that the administration had appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program, citing a decision last year refusing to let the Trump administration rescind the Obama-era program protecting the young immigrants known as dreamers.

The court’s three more liberal members — Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said they would have granted a stay of the trial judge’s ruling. They did not give reasons. The case will now be heard by an appeals court and may return to the Supreme Court.

The challenged program, known commonly as Remain in Mexico and formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols, applies to people who left a third country and traveled through Mexico to reach the U.S. border. After the policy was put in place at the beginning of 2019, tens of thousands of people waited for immigration hearings in unsanitary tent encampments exposed to the elements. There have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnapping and torture.

President Biden suspended and then ended the program. Texas and Missouri sued, saying they had been injured by the termination by having to provide government services like drivers’ licenses to immigrants allowed into the United States under the program.

On Aug. 13, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Amarillo, ruled that a federal law required returning noncitizens seeking asylum to Mexico whenever the government lacked the resources to detain them.

That was a novel reading of the law, the acting solicitor general, Brian H. Fletcher, told the justices. That view had “never been accepted by any presidential administration since the statute’s enactment in 1996,” including the Trump administration, he said. . .

Judge Kacsmaryk suspended his ruling for a week, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, refused to give the administration a further stay while it pursued an appeal, prompting an emergency application for a stay in the Supreme Court. On Friday, shortly before the ruling was to go into effect, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued a short stay to allow the full Supreme Court to consider the matter.

The Supreme Court has had previous encounters with the program. In response to an emergency application from the Trump administration, the court revived the program last year after a federal appeals court blocked it.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-asylum-mexico.html

[ColinC]

4. There might not be precedent for obscure foreign policy rulings by judges

But there certainly is precedent for presidents to completely ignore SCOTUS rulings. Its even more fitting when there is no clear order connected with the ruling.

[elleng]

5. The court's brief unsigned order . . . .

'Here's my writeup of the truly awful decision that the Supreme Court handed down. One of the most radical decisions of my lifetime.'

Hyper-ventilating much?

'The case will now be heard by an appeals court and may return to the Supreme Court.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-asylum-mexico.html

[bluedevil4]

8. There's

hope then. If I’m reading it correctly the Biden administration has to write up a plan, correct? It was their lack of a plan that caused the SC to uphold the “remain in Mexico “ Then it goes back to the SC. Also Mexico has to agree with it

[elleng]

11. Yes. **

Last edited Wed Aug 25, 2021, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Too bad these nuances were not mentioned **just now, Wed. @ 8:45 p.m.** on Chris Hayes' show, in discussion between Chris and his legal expert. (Sorry I don't recall her name.)

[dsc]

9. But in the meantime the policy has to be revived meaning that Mexico can literally ask us for

anything. Then our choices are capitulate or invade Mexico to reset up this program.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Judges enforce the law and do not make the law

This is a very stupid decision

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Well, why don't we take a cue from this conservative Supreme Court and apply strict

constructionist methods and interpret the nebulous ruling, the way we fucking want to interpret it?

[in2herbs]

10. Agree. nt