Supreme Court Dismisses States’ Lawsuit Asking Biden Administration to Increase Deportations

55

On Friday, the Supreme Court turned down a lawsuit led by Republicans challenging a policy by the Biden administration, which prioritizes the deportation of immigrants considered to pose a serious public safety threat or those apprehended at the border.

In an 8-1 vote, the justices permitted the previously hindered policy to be implemented, acknowledging that the funds and resources are not adequate to deport all estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States.

The case was one among two immigration-related decisions made on Friday. The other decision upheld a portion of the federal law used to penalize individuals promoting illegal immigration.

RELATED STORIES
– Supreme Court supports federal law penalizing those who promote illegal immigration
– Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a man involved in an international assassination team
– Supreme Court decision complicates Navajo Nation’s struggle for more water rights

Louisiana and Texas, in the deportation case, contended that federal immigration law mandates detaining and expelling those in the U.S. unlawfully, regardless of the level of risk they pose. However, the court decided that these states lacked the legal standing, the right to initiate a lawsuit.

POLITICS
Indian Premier’s state visit concludes with a meeting between Biden, Modi, and executives from Apple, Google
Ahead of Dobbs anniversary, Pence urges his 2024 rivals to support a 15-week federal abortion ban
A year after the overturning of Roe, Biden is set to sign an order safeguarding birth control access
Infowars ‘War Room’ host Owen Shroyer admits to entering a restricted area during the Capitol riot

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, expressed that the executive branch has the necessity to prioritize enforcement actions. He wrote, “The Executive Branch invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public welfare needs of the American people.”

The case revolved around a directive issued by the Department of Homeland Security in September 2021, which put a hold on deportations unless the individuals had committed acts of terrorism, espionage, or presented “egregious threats to public safety.” The directive, issued after Joe Biden assumed office, revised a policy from the Trump administration, which aimed to deport individuals in the country unlawfully, regardless of their criminal records or community ties.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, praised the decision made on Friday. He stated that it would allow immigration officers to concentrate “limited resources and enforcement actions on those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security.”

This case highlights a frequently deployed litigation strategy by Republican attorneys general and other officials. This strategy has been successful in stalling Biden administration policies by approaching courts seen as favorable to Republicans.

Texas and Louisiana argued in their lawsuit that the federal government’s potential decision to allow individuals with criminal records to remain free within the United States would result in additional detention costs for the states.

Last year, a federal judge in Texas instituted a nationwide suspension of the directive, and a federal appellate panel in New Orleans declined to intervene.

Earlier, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati overturned a district judge’s order that put the policy on hold, a decision made in response to a lawsuit filed by Arizona, Ohio, and Montana.

Yet, 11 months prior, when the administration requested the Supreme Court to step in, the justices voted 5-4 to keep the policy on hold while also agreeing to hear the case. This case was then argued in December.

In the decision made on Friday, Kavanaugh’s opinion represented five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred with the outcome for different reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, expressing in his opinion that the decision unduly gives preference to the president over Congress. He further wrote, “And it renders states already laboring under the effects of massive illegal immigration even more helpless.”

In another decision related to immigration delivered on Friday, the court upheld a section of the federal law that penalizes those who encourage illegal immigration.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote, reinstated the criminal conviction of a California man named Helaman Hansen, who deceitfully promised adult adoptions would result in U.S. citizenship. Hansen managed to deceive at least 471 people who paid him between $550 and $10,000 each, thereby earning over $1.8 million, as per the government.

Hansen was prosecuted under a section of federal immigration law, which states that a person encouraging or enticing a non-citizen to enter or remain in the U.S. illegally can face up to five years in prison. If the person is benefiting financially, the sentence can increase to 10 years. The justices dismissed an appeals court’s assertion that the law was excessively broad and contravened the Constitution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Biden Deportation Policy

More about Biden Deportation Policy

• Supreme Court of the United States
• Biden Administration Immigration Policies
• Department of Homeland Security
• Federal Immigration Law