Supreme Court Upholds Biden Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Policy, Dismissing State Challenges

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The Supreme Court has upheld the immigration enforcement policy of the Biden administration, dismissing challenges from Texas and Louisiana. The majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stated that the states lacked Article III standing to bring the suit.

The Biden administration’s guidelines in question prioritized the arrest and deportation of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals, as well as those recently apprehended at the border. However, Texas and Louisiana argued that they incurred costs when the administration failed to enforce federal statutes that mandate certain deportations. They claimed that they had to spend money on imprisonment and social services that would have been unnecessary if the federal government detained noncitizens.

In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh highlighted the fundamental Article III principle that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority if they themselves are neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. He concluded that the states lacked standing to bring the suit and rejected their request for the federal judiciary to alter the executive branch’s arrest policy.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

See also: Supreme Court Upholds Law Prohibiting ‘Encouraging or Inducing’ Illegal Immigration

Furthermore, Kavanaugh emphasized that the executive branch must consider resource constraints and changing public-safety and public-welfare needs when making arrest and prosecution policies. He cautioned against granting standing to the states, as it would lead to judicial direction of the Department of Homeland Security’s arrest policies and open the door for complaints about alleged underenforcement of various laws in the future.

Don’t leave money on the table. Make sure you’re earning what you’re worth by checking out LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Kavanaugh clarified that his opinion did not preclude federal courts from hearing claims related to failures to make more arrests or bring new prosecutions in all circumstances. He identified several scenarios where the standing analysis might differ, such as when selective prosecution claims are brought under the equal protection clause, when Congress specifically authorizes suits for underenforcement, when the executive branch abandons its statutory responsibilities, or when a challenge involves both arrest or prosecution priorities and the provision of legal benefits or status.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the majority had disregarded precedent and factual findings. Alito believed that Texas had standing and criticized the majority’s departure from settled law.

The American Bar Association (ABA) expressed support for the Supreme Court’s decision, applauding the preservation of the Biden administration’s policy on immigration enforcement. ABA President Deborah Enix-Ross stated that the ABA backs granting immigration authorities the discretion to determine the status of longtime, law-abiding noncitizens in the United States. The ABA also supports the establishment of deportation priorities focusing on individuals who pose threats to national security and public safety.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s decision should not be interpreted as granting the executive branch unlimited constitutional authority to disregard statutes that require or prohibit executive action, as Justice Kavanaugh clarified in the opinion.

This ruling has significant implications for the Biden administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. By upholding the administration’s guidelines, the Supreme Court has affirmed the executive branch’s discretion in setting arrest and deportation priorities. The decision reinforces the principle that the federal judiciary should not interfere with the executive’s enforcement discretion unless specific legal thresholds, such as standing, are met.

Moving forward, the debate over immigration policies and enforcement will undoubtedly continue. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the limits of state challenges to federal immigration enforcement policies, but it does not settle the broader questions surrounding immigration reform and the balance between national security, public safety, and individual rights.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Drop a comment and let your opinion shine.