By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a heavy blow to Texas and Louisiana on Friday in a court case about a policy of the Biden administration that has helped effectively end most of the illegal deportations of foreigners in the US.
Instead of ruling on the merits, in United States v. Texas, the court ruled 8-1 that the states had no jurisdiction or legal right to challenge the policy.
Judge Samuel Alito wrote the only dissenting opinion, arguing that the justices ignored “an important precedent”.
He wrote:
“The court rules that Texas has no jurisdiction to challenge a federal policy that causes significant harm to the state and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.
In arriving at this conclusion, the court overrules important precedent that directly governs the standing question, refuses to apply our well-established test for reputation, ignores factual findings of the post-trial court findings, and states that the only limitation on the power of a president to disobey a law such as the important provision in question is the power of Congress to employ the weapons of interstate warfare – withholding money, impeachment and removal, etc. I would not go down this unfortunate path stock up. I would simply apply the established law, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that Texas has statehood.”
Last June, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, arguing that they would incur costs because the federal government failed to comply with federal immigration and deportation laws. The judge ruled that the states had procedural rights because of these costs. He also vacated the deportation policy, arguing it was illegal.
The Biden administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which gave the states another victory by refusing to uphold the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certification. Last fall, the court heard oral arguments and ruled on Friday that the states were ineligible for Article III.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote a different opinion, saying the states had no standing for any reason other than the one Kavanaugh gave. He was joined by judges Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote her own concurring opinion and was joined by Gorsuch.
Related: Feds capture more than 460 known suspected terrorists in nine months, most on northern border
At issue is a final memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civilian Immigration Laws,” issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, drastically changing deportation policies, including limiting the issuing of arrest warrants for dangerous criminal aliens .
In Mayorkas’ final memorandum of September 2021, he also challenged the federal law enacted by Congress that illegal entry is a crime in itself and a deportable misdemeanor. The policy states: “The fact that a person is a removable non-citizen should therefore not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against him. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources. Justice and the well-being of our country demand it.”
Many news organizations reported that the Supreme Court ruling would allow the government to prioritize the deportation of violent criminals. But under the current government, deportations immediately fell by two-thirds in the government’s first fiscal year, according to CBP data. In FY 2021, deportations also fell to the lowest level since FY 1996, despite a record number of illegal entries.
Mayorkas’s policy also followed President Joe Biden’s directive, who ordered a “pause” of the deportations after taking office.
Related: Illegal border crossings so far this year exceed populations of 8 states
Last July, 19 attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit from Texas and Louisiana, arguing that Mayorkas violated federal law and that DHS’s actions negatively impacted their states and the safety and jeopardizing the well-being of Americans.
The AGs argued, and continue to assert, “The Amici states and their citizens continue to incur significant costs from illegal immigration – including billions of dollars in new spending related to law enforcement, education and health care programs – as a direct result of the failure of the The damage is compounded by DHS’s increasingly blatant disrespect for the requirements of our country’s immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“The border is in crisis,” they argued. “This DHS administration is lawless. And states continue to suffer escalating irreparable damage as the border crisis intensifies into successive, increasingly unprecedented levels of illegal crossings.
Syndicated with permission from Center Square.