Conservative Supreme Court justices help shut down Texas immigration lawsuit
78 other sources covering this story
Total News Sources
6 months ago
The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that Texas and Louisiana lack the standing to sue the Biden Administration over its immigration policy regarding enforcement prioritization.
Here’s the back story. In 2021 Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas created a new immigration policy that prioritized the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals, or who have entered unlawfully recently.
Texas and Louisiana sued, saying the new guidelines break federal immigration law and that the administration should be even stricter and expand their enforcement measures.
But the Justices determined those states do not have standing to sue under Article III, which is established when the plaintiff proves they suffered an injury that can be resolved by a court order.
In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote: “when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.”
“In sum, the States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests.”
But although this was a ruling in the Biden Administration’s favor, the majority clarified that their decision does not take a stance on whether the administration’s immigration policy is legal.
Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter. He believes the states did have proper standing. He wrote: “If a President fails or refuses to enforce the immigration laws, the States must simply bear the consequences. That interpretation of executive authority and Article III’s case or controversy requirement is deeply and dangerously flawed.”
Straight from DC, I’m Ray Bogan