The court will not block the order to restore the “stay in Mexico” policy

The court will not block the order to restore the “stay in Mexico” policy



Emergency file

In 2018, an asylum-seeking woman arrived at the US border in Tijuana, Mexico with her newborn baby. (Daniel Arauz, from Flickr)

On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s request to suspend the implementation of the district court order, which required it to restore the Trump-era “stay in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico during the waiting period. The U.S. Immigration Court holds a hearing. The court was divided on its decision to refuse relief. The three liberal judges of the court-Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan-said they would approve the government’s request and shelve it The order of the district court.

The decision means that the Biden administration must resume the implementation of the policy “in good faith,” while litigation in lower courts continues.

Order for tuesday night This is the second time that a judge has taken urgent action on the “Stay in Mexico” policy (formally known as the Immigration Protection Agreement) announced by the Trump administration in 2018. In March 2020, the court allow After being blocked by a federal district judge in California, the Trump administration began to implement the policy.Supreme Court Later agreed Review the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling found that the policy may be inconsistent with federal immigration law and international law, but the judges Dismiss the case Earlier this summer, the Biden administration ended this policy. Critics of the policy say it forces asylum seekers to live in dangerous and unsanitary camps in Mexican border towns.

After the Biden administration ended the policy, federal courts from Texas and Missouri to Texas challenged the decision. The states argued that the decision to terminate the policy violated federal immigration laws and federal laws of procedures that must be followed by federal agencies. They also argued that without this policy, a large number of immigrants could enter the United States based on suspicious asylum applications, thereby incurring costs to the states.

The federal district judge agreed that the states and order The Biden administration will resume this policy before August 21.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Refusal to set aside the ruling Give the government time to appeal.

Biden Administration Went to the Supreme Court on Friday, Asking the judge to intervene. Acting Deputy Attorney General Brian Fletcher defended the decision to terminate the policy after careful consideration. He warned that the district court’s order for the government to immediately restore the policy would interfere with US-Mexico relations and “threatening of border chaos”.

Judge Samuel Alito, who handled the urgent request from Texas, temporarily suspended the district court order to allow the judge to consider the request. Alito shelved the order until 11:59 p.m. Tuesday night and ordered the states to respond by 5 p.m. Tuesday—a sign that the court will act quickly.

In the documents filed on Tuesday afternoon, the states played down the Biden administration’s complaint that district court orders interfered with U.S. foreign policy. The states stated that the government only expressed “vague concerns” in the trial, and in any case “almost any major immigration policy may have collateral effects on diplomatic relations.” The states rejected the government’s argument that asking it to reinstate the policy would lead to “border chaos” as a “scarecrow”: “[T]A humanitarian emergency at the border is happening,” the states wrote, and the situation has only gotten worse since the Biden administration suspended the policy. In fact, the states pointed out that news reports indicate that the Biden administration itself has “discussed privately” due to The policy was restored due to border issues.

The states also told judges that the memorandum that the Department of Homeland Security officially terminated the policy on June 1 was neither reasonable nor reasonable, as required by federal law. The states emphasized that, among other things, the DHS memorandum did not consider the benefits of the policy or the extent to which states depend on it.

In a brief unsigned order issued shortly before 8pm on Tuesday, the court explained that the Biden administration is unlikely to succeed — one of the criteria for obtaining such emergency relief requests — indicating its decision to terminate the request. The policy is not “arbitrary and capricious”-that is, a reasonable and reasonable explanation.The order cited the court’s 2020 ruling Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, It rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the child’s deferred return program, an Obama-era policy designed to protect people who were brought to the United States as children without authorization.exist regent, The court held that the Trump administration did not correctly explain its decision to terminate DACA.

In the order on Tuesday night, the court added that its decision not to suspend the district court order “should not be interpreted by the Fifth Circuit as affecting the construction of the order.” The Fifth Circuit had emphasized that the district court “did not order the government to Restoring the MPP’s infrastructure overnight”, but only asking it to implement and implement the policy “in good faith”.

The three liberal judges of the court made it clear that they would agree to the government’s request, although none of them wrote a formal objection. There is no way to know whether their colleague also voted for government relief; if there is any justice, he or she did not publicly notice the vote.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.


Source link

More to explorer

Understanding Key Factors in Accidents

[ad_1] Pedestrian Safety Statistics Pedestrian safety is an urgent concern worldwide, with over 1.3 million people dying in traffic accidents annually. Pedestrians