The Biden administration seeks to quickly ease from restoring the “stay in Mexico” policy
August 20, 2021
President Joe Biden wanted to lift the Trump-era border policy, but a federal district judge recently ordered the government to restore the policy. (Archna nautiyal via Shutterstock)
Biden Administration Friday Ask the Supreme Court Immediately postpone the restoration of the Trump-era “stay in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing in the U.S. immigration court. Acting Deputy Attorney General Brian Fletcher told the judge that the lower court order instructing the government to resume the plan “may cause a’humanitarian and diplomatic emergency’” and urged the Supreme Court to block the order, otherwise The order was originally scheduled to take effect on Saturday morning.
The “Stay in Mexico” policy announced by the Trump administration in 2018 is no stranger to judges. In March 2020, the court allow After being blocked by a judge in the federal district of California, the Trump administration began to implement the policy, officially known as the “Immigration Protection Agreement.”The court agree In October 2020, it reviewed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling found that the policy may not comply with federal immigration law and international law, but the judges Be fired At the request of the Biden administration, the case was heard in June 2021, and the policy was terminated after the Biden administration took office.
The case now in court was filed in April by the states of Texas and Missouri, who argued (among other things) that the government’s decision to terminate the policy violated federal immigration laws and federal laws governing procedures that must be followed by federal administrative agencies . On August 13, a federal district judge in Texas Good for the states And ordered the federal government to restore the policy before August 21. The district judge rejected the government’s request to shelve the ruling during the government’s appeal.On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Also refused The freezing of the district judge’s decision led to an urgent appeal by the government to the Supreme Court.
Critics of the policy say it forces tens of thousands of Central American immigrants to live in dirty and dangerous camps along the Mexican border, waiting for the results of their asylum applications. Texas and Missouri state that if there are no policies in place, a large number of immigrants will enter the United States based on suspicious asylum applications and charge fees to the states.
In a 40-page document submitted on Friday, Fletcher defended the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas’ decision to terminate the policy. “Achieved after the “standard of respect” imposed by the Federal Administrative Law. Fletcher wrote that Majorcas simply concluded that the benefits of keeping the plan “far outweigh” the benefits of ending it.Fletcher also emphasized that the magistrate’s order for the government to resume policy “involves extremely sensitive diplomatic relations issues” and “threats[s] Chaos at the border”—especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fletcher concluded his application with a sharp reminder that during Trump’s administration, the court “repeatedly issued extensive lower court injunctions on the executive branch’s policies on immigration, foreign policy, and immigration management issues.” In his opinion, The court should “do the same thing here.”
The request of the Biden administration was passed to Justice Samuel Alito, who was responsible for handling the urgent request of the Fifth Circuit. Alito can act on his own request or, more commonly in high-profile cases, submit it to the full court. The Biden administration not only requested a stay of the district court’s injunction, but also a more limited stay, also known as an administrative stay, while the Supreme Court considers the government’s request; the court can very quickly take action on the request for administrative stay.
This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.