Supreme Court says Biden cannot reinstate policy limiting ICE arrests, for now
Source: Washington Post
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused the Biden administration’s request to reinstate a policy limiting immigration arrests, after a Texas district judge said the guidance to immigration officers violated federal laws. The court instead said it will hear the merits of the case in December. Four justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — said they would have granted the administration’s request to put a lower court ruling on hold. It was Jackson’s first vote since joining the court.
In September, the Department of Homeland Security directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to prioritize the detention of recent border crossers and immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety, and to consider giving a break to immigrants with mitigating factors, such as farmworkers picking crops and grandmothers caring for American children. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that being present in the country without authorization “should not alone be the basis” for arrest or removal, a switch from the Trump administration’s view.
Republican attorneys general across the country filed suits, and those in Texas and Louisiana were successful. Judge Drew Tipton in Texas agreed with the argument that the policy burdened them with the costs of immigrants’ education, health care, and other services, and ignored federal laws that require ICE to detain and deport immigrants who commit serious crimes or have been given a recent deportation order.
Tipton, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, sided with the states and vacated the ICE priorities, leaving the agency without any operational guidelines. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the administration’s plea to put Tipton’s order on hold while it considered the case’s merits. That was the opposite of what a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found when it considered a nearly identical case filed by Arizona, Montana and Ohio.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/21/supreme-court-biden-ice-immigration-enforcement/
= new reply since forum marked as read
How many times was Trump seriously knocked down and told, "Hell, no!"?
Search DU. Such events were neither uncommon nor mourned. They were just unexpected and hard to accept--celebrated, but always deemed outliers.
Take the attempted revocation of DACA as one example.
https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/alert-supreme-court-overturns-trump-administrations-termination-of-daca/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/upshot/for-trump-administration-it-has-been-hard-to-follow-the-rules-on-rules.html
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-sanctuary-city-case-is-a-major-setback-for-the-trump-administration/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
That last link is, in its entirety, below. Some decisions were reversed, but they all boiled down to, "You, mr. president, didn't follow the laws imposed on you by Congress." In some cases, a Constitutional provision was deemed to override the APA. Often, not so much.
Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input.
Many of the cases are in early stages and subject to reversal. For example, the Supreme Court permitted a version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations to take effect after lower-court judges blocked the travel ban as discriminatory.
But regardless of whether the administration ultimately prevails, the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior
The APA screws over wanna-be "I'm the Decider" folk fairly regularly. And Trump, follow the rules? Seriously ...?
What are they going to do? It's been established they can't prosecute a sitting president, right?
He got away with it.
