White House Reporter
Politico
Josh Gerstein reports for Politico:
States can’t use the federal courts to try to force the federal government to arrest and deport more people who are in the country illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The 8-1 decision could cut down on a flood of lawsuits recent administrations have faced from state attorneys general and governors who disagree with Washington on immigration and crime policy.
The high court’s ruling found that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to pursue litigation challenging immigration enforcement priorities established by President Joe Biden’s administration soon after he took office.
It’s the second decision in eight days in which the Supreme Court has rejected lawsuits from Texas on standing grounds. Last week, the court ruled that the state did not have standing to challenge a federal law that gives preferences to Native American families in the adoptions of Native children.
State standing is a key question in another major issue still awaiting decision from the court in the coming days: the legality of Biden’s decision to wipe out billions of dollars in student debt.
Six states are challenging the debt-relief plan, but it’s not clear if the states have suffered the sort of concrete harm that is typically necessary to challenge a policy in court. (In a separate case, two student-loan borrowers who oppose the plan are also suing. Their legal standing is also contested.)
In the immigration case, critics of the states’ approach said their claim of likely financial injury from unwarranted release of undocumented migrants was murky. But the court’s majority opinion written, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took a different tack and said the case was flawed because of a general principle against suits trying to force the executive branch to enforce the law against someone else.
“This Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals. “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”
. . . .
********************
Read Josh’s complete article at the above link. The aptly titled case is United States v. Texas, and here’s a link to the full opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
I suppose whether you “like” or “hate” this decision depends on who is in power and what you think about them. As my friend and immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport told me, immigrants’ rights advocates might cheer this decision today, but will not be happy if Trump is elected and they can no longer team up with Democrat State AGs to challenge alleged abuses of prosecutorial authority by Trump’s Administration.
Recognizing Nolan’s point that the “sword cuts both ways,” I think this is the correct result. Perhaps, that’s because it’s a derivation of a long line of cases on prosecutorial discretion that we often successfully invoked during my time in the “Legacy INS” OGC. Also, it seems correct from a “separation of powers” standpoint.
One of the cases that the Court relied upon is Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 (1973). Interestingly, that case, then relatively recently decided, was one of the many I cited in the July 15, 1976 opinion that I drafted for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen approving the INS’s use of prosecutorial discretion. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bernsen-Memo-service-exercise-pd.pdf.
Prosecutorial discretion was also an issue at the heart of the immigration case of John Lennon, which was recently in the news again because of the death of his legendary immigration counsel, Leon Wildes. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/01/09/😇-obit-leon-wildes-90-legendary-immigration-lawyer-educator-a-fond-remembrance-appreciation-from-careen-shannon-🗽/.
The “Bernsen opinion” (FN 8) cited the various Lennon cases and made reference to Leon’s article in Interpreter Releases (1976) on the topic.
After five decades of working in the immigration field in different positions and different levels, I think it’s always interesting how things from my “early career” still have relevance today!
U.S. v. Texas could also spell bad news for Texas GOP insurrectionists Gov. Greg Abbott and AG Ken Paxton in their lawless attempts to impede the U.S. Border Patrol enforcement at the border. See, e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/us/texas-border-patrol-us-mexico?cid=ios_app.
Indeed, although you wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media and the “alternate universe debate” now going on in Congress, the GOP claims of “open borders” and lack of immigration enforcement are total BS. In fact, the Biden Administration has far “out-deported” and “out-enforced” the Trump Administration. See, e.g., https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2024/01/03/deportation-numbers-under-biden-surpass-trumps-record/.
As experts and those who actually work with migrants at the border know, “enforcement only” doesn’t work at the border or anywhere else, although it does fuel political movements and powerful corporate interests. See, e.g., .https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/prepare-yourselves-for-the-2024-border?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post. But, truth, rationality, humanity, expertise, and the rule of law are largely absent from today’s one-sided immigration discussions. That doesn’t bode well for the future of our nation or the world.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
01-18-24