Supreme Court hears Texas immigration case on ICE apprehension policy
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the immigration case US v. Texas, and attorneys for both the Biden Administration and the state of Texas were strongly challenged by Justices.
The case stems from a September 2021 memorandum by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that instructed ICE to prioritize deportations for immigrants who are a threat to national security, public safety and border security. They contend that because there are 11 million immigrants in the country illegally and only 6,000 immigration officers, they do not have the resources to go after them all. This is a change from the Trump administration that allowed agents to arrest anyone in the US illegally.
The case revolves around two questions. First, whether states have standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration guidelines in the first place. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and some of the court’s liberal justices said the states do not.
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar “Federal courts should not now be transformed into open forums for each and every policy dispute between the states and the national government.”
A large focus of this question was whether states will incur financial harm.
Justice Kagan: “If all you need to do is to say we have a dollar’s worth of costs, and you don’t even need to think about the benefits on the other side. I mean, every immigration policy, you let in more people you let in fewer people, is going to have some effect on a state’s fiscal condition.”
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone: “We have at least one example in the record of a specific alien Reuben Abonza. Alien, that detainer was removed, he was released, and then it was re apprehended for committing human trafficking, that commits that kind of costs, both law enforcement recidivism, that certainly forms the basis of an Article Three injury that is speculative it occurred.”
The second question that was considered – do DHS guidelines violate title eight of US code regarding the apprehension and detention of aliens.
Prelogar: “The INA does not create an unyielding mandate to apprehend and remove every non citizen described in provisions that use the term shall.”
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone focused on section 1226 c of federal code, specifically regarding the detention of criminal aliens.
Stone: “The final memorandum is unlawful for multiple reasons, most clearly, because it treats section 1226 C as discretionary. Well, both this court and every previous administration have acknowledged it as mandatory. “
A lower court ruled against DHS in this case, so the Biden administration is hoping the Justices will overturn that decision. Straight from The Supreme Court, I’m Ray Bogan.