Breaking News
Investing Pro 0

U.S. Supreme Court mulls Biden immigration enforcement shift

World Nov 29, 2022 08:51PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., October 2, 2022. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

By Nate Raymond and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday struggled 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 heard about two hours of arguments in the administration's request to overturn a judge's ruling in favor of Texas and Louisiana that halted U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines narrowing the scope of those who can be targeted by immigration agents for arrest and deportation.

The court's three liberal members generally signaled support for the administration while the six conservatives appeared more divided, with Justice Samuel Alito embracing the arguments made by the states while others posed tough questions to both sides.

Some of the questions involved whether the guidelines violated immigration law, whether U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton had the power to void the guidelines as he did in June and whether Texas and Louisiana had suffered any significant harm that gave them legal standing to sue.

The guidelines, part of Biden's recalibration of U.S. immigration policy after the hardline approach taken by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump, prioritized apprehending and deporting non-U.S. citizens who pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security.

The two states, whose Republican attorneys general filed the suit, 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. Biden's administration disagreed.

"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.

Roberts also labeled as "compelling" the administration's argument that DHS lacks resources to catch and deport all of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

"It is impossible for the executive to do what you want them to do, right?" Roberts asked Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, who was arguing for the two states.

"There are never enough resources - or almost never enough resources - to detain every person who should be detained, arrest every person who should be arrested, prosecute every person who has violated the law," conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh added.

The justices in July voted 5-4 - with conservative Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in dissent - not to block Tipton's ruling halting the guidelines, announced last year by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas cited the longstanding practice of government officials exercising discretion to decide who should be subject to deportation and said that most immigrants subject to deportation "have been contributing members of our communities for years."

Republicans have criticized Biden's administration, saying fewer detentions and deportations have encouraged more illegal border crossings. Kevin McCarthy, the top U.S. House of Representatives Republican, last week called on Mayorkas to step down and said the House may try to impeach him when Republicans formally take control of the chamber in January.

During Biden's first year in office, arrests and deportations of immigrants in the United States illegally declined compared to previous years. In the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2021, deportations dropped to 59,000 compared with 186,000 the prior year. The administration has attributed the drop to a COVID-19 pandemic-related order used to quickly expel hundreds of thousands of migrants, known as Title 42.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the administration, said Texas and Louisiana lack the proper legal standing because they have not suffered direct harm due to the policy. The states have said they would be harmed by having to spend more money on law enforcement and social services due to an increase in non-U.S. citizens present within their borders.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Stone, "We're just going to be in a situation where every administration is confronted by suits by states that can bring a policy to a dead stop by just showing a dollar's worth of costs."

Alito said Prelogar was advocating for "a rule of special hostility to state standing" that would not apply to other litigants such as private individuals.

Some justices also appeared taken aback by Prelogar's argument that federal administrative law does not permit courts to wholly void rules adopted by the executive branch.

Roberts called her view "radical and inconsistent" with longstanding judicial actions throwing out federal agency rules.

"Wow," Roberts added.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

U.S. Supreme Court mulls Biden immigration enforcement shift
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (4)
Ac Tektrader
Ac Tektrader Nov 29, 2022 2:58PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
I see far right MAGA Bev is back with more paranoid anti- democracy bs.....
Bev Mcguffee
Bev Mcguffee Nov 29, 2022 11:36AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
This is a joke!  Biden and the Democrats need the ILLEGALS and NEEDY for votes! They do not need taxpaying Americans’ votes, since they are spending our money on the above, along with give-aways, Ukraine’s war and loan forgiveness without the taxpayer’s approval, who happens to be footing their Causes.
Maximus Maximus
Maximus Maximus Nov 29, 2022 11:36AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
illegals can't vote you m(oron)
First Last
First Last Nov 29, 2022 11:36AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
""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. ... prioritized apprehending and deporting non-U.S. citizens who pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security."  --  Biden Admin is just trying to prioritize deporting the NON-taxpaying illegals.
Stephen Fa
Stephen Fa Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Mayorkas and Biden want the new voters for the Marxist welfare state.
Show previous replies (5)
Stephen Fa
Stephen Fa Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
@Max, you're the ignorant one who's not aware of NYC's efforts to allow illegal al1ens to vote. S.T,F,U.
First Last
First Last Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Stephen Fa   That law was ruled unconstitutional, and would've allow LEGAL permanent (living in NYC for 30 days or more) residents, or with U.S. authorization to work, to vote in NYC elections, NOT illegal immigrants and not for elections outside NYC.  Not relevant to this article, which is about illegals nationwide.
Stephen Fa
Stephen Fa Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
It good to be Bourgeois here lol
Stephen Fa
Stephen Fa Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
First, don't you mean "undocumented" instead of illegal like the rest of you left wing friends.
First Last
First Last Nov 29, 2022 8:34AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Stephen Fa   Both terms work.
rob finch
rob finch Nov 29, 2022 8:17AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Let them all in and take them to Martha's vinyard.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email