Texas v. Biden – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️👏😎 BREAKING: SUPREME RELIEF: Court Reaffirms Executive’s Authority To Set Sane Immigration Enforcement Policies! — “Standing” Key! — Baseless Attacks By GOP In Texas & Louisiana Thwarted (For Now) — 8-1 Win For Administration, Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, 3 Concurring, Alito Lone Dissenter! — U.S. v. Texas

Here’s a copy of the full decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf

Here’s the syllabus (NOT part of the decision):

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–58. Argued November 29, 2022—Decided June 23, 2023

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated new immigra- tion-enforcement guidelines (Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law) that prioritize the arrest and removal from the United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently, for example. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guide- lines contravene two federal statutes that they read to require the ar- rest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U. S. C. §1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (§1231(a)(2)). The District Court found that the States would incur costs due to the Executive’s failure to comply with those alleged statutory mandates, and that the States had standing to sue based on those costs. On the merits, the District Court found the Guidelines unlawful and vacated them. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the District Court’s judgment, and this Court granted certiorari before judgment.

Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. Pp. 3–14.

(a) Under Article III, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. This bedrock constitutional requirement has its roots in the separation of powers. So the threshold question here is whether the States have standing to maintain this suit. Based on this Court’s precedents and longstanding historical practice, the answer is no.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The District Court found that the States would incur additional costs due to the chal- lenged arrest policy. And monetary costs are an injury. But this Court has stressed that the alleged injury must also “be legally and judicially cognizable.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819. That requires that

2

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Syllabus

the dispute is “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Ibid. Here, the States cite no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619. The Linda R. S. Article III standing principle remains the law today, and the States have pointed to no case or historical prac- tice holding otherwise. Pp. 3–6.

(b) There are good reasons why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. For one, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___. The principle of Executive Branch enforcement dis- cretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration con- text. Courts also generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area, which are invariably affected by resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs. That is why this Court has 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. Pp. 6–9.

(c) This holding does not suggest that federal courts may never en- tertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. First, the Court has adjudi- cated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause in which a plaintiff typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecu- tion. Second, the standing analysis might differ when Congress ele- vates de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries re- dressable by a federal court. Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory respon- sibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both arrest or prosecution priorities and the provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. Fifth, policies governing the contin- ued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. But this case presents none of those scenarios. Pp. 9–12.

(d) The discrete standing question raised by this case rarely arises because federal statutes that purport to require the Executive Branch

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3 Syllabus

to make arrests or bring prosecutions are rare. This case is different from those in which the Federal Judiciary decides justiciable cases in- volving statutory requirements or prohibitions on the Executive, be- cause it implicates the Executive Branch’s enforcement discretion and raises the distinct question of whether the Federal Judiciary may in effect order the Executive Branch to take enforcement actions. The Court’s decision does not indicate any view on whether the Executive is complying with its statutory obligations. Nor does the Court’s nar- row holding signal any change in the balance of powers between Con- gress and the Executive. Pp. 12–14.

606 F. Supp. 3d 437, reversed.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and BAR- RETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judg- ment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Key quotes from Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion:

In short, this Court’s precedents and longstanding

historical practice establish that the States’ suit here is not the kind redressable by a federal court.

B

Several good reasons explain why, as Linda R. S. held, federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind.

To begin with, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. And for standing purposes, the absence of coercive power over the plaintiff makes a difference: When “a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to establish standing. Id., at 562 (emphasis deleted).2

Moreover, lawsuits alleging that the Executive Branch has made an insufficient number of arrests or brought an insufficient number of prosecutions run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce federal law. Article II of the Constitution assigns the “executive Power” to the President and provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 1; §3. Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13); see Lujan, 504 U. S., at 576–578; Allen, 468

——————

2 By contrast, when “the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or

forgone action) at issue,” “there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562.

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 7

Opinion of the Court

U.S., at 760–761. The Executive Branch—not the Judiciary—makes arrests and prosecutes offenses on behalf of the United States. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 922–923 (1997) (Brady Act provisions held unconstitutional because, among other things, they transferred power to execute federal law to state officials); United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464 (1996) (decisions about enforcement of “the Nation’s criminal laws” lie within the “special province of the Executive” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 138 (1976) (“A lawsuit is the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law, and it is to the President, and not to the Congress, that the Constitution entrusts the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’” (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, §3)); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5 1965).

That principle of enforcement discretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration context, where the Court has stressed that the Executive’s enforcement discretion implicates not only “normal domestic law enforcement priorities” but also “foreign-policy objectives.” Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 490–491 (1999). In line with those principles, this Court has declared that the Executive Branch also retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States. Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 396 (2012) (“Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all”).

In addition to the Article II problems raised by judicial review of the Executive Branch’s arrest and prosecution policies, courts generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area. After all, the Executive Branch must prioritize its

8 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

enforcement efforts. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607–608 (1985). That is because the Executive Branch (i) invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and (ii) must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public- welfare needs of the American people.

This case illustrates the point. As the District Court found, the Executive Branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2). That reality is not an anomaly—it is a constant. For the last 27 years since §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2) were enacted in their current form, all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.

In light of inevitable resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs, the Executive Branch must balance many factors when devising arrest and prosecution policies. That complicated balancing process in turn leaves courts without meaningful standards for assessing those policies. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 830–832 (1985); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U. S. 182, 190–192 (1993). Therefore, in both Article III cases and Administrative Procedure Act cases, 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. See Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 619; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 831 (recognizing the “general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement”); ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 283 (1987) (“it is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the subject of judicial review”).3

——————

3 Also, the plaintiffs here are States, and federal courts must remain

mindful of bedrock Article III constraints in cases brought by States

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 9

Opinion of the Court

All of those considerations help explain why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. By concluding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing here, we abide by and reinforce the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. The States’ novel standing argument, if accepted, would entail expansive judicial direction of the Department’s arrest policies. 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. Our constitutional system of separation of powers “contemplates a more restricted role for Article III courts.” Raines, 521 U. S., at 828.

C

In holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.

First, the Court has adjudicated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause. In those cases, however, a party typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecution, not to mandate additional prosecutions

——————

against an executive agency or officer. To be sure, States sometimes have standing to sue the United States or an executive agency or officer. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992). But in our system of dual federal and state sovereignty, federal policies frequently generate indirect effects on state revenues or state spending. And when a State asserts, for example, that a federal law has produced only those kinds of indirect effects, the State’s claim for standing can become more attenuated. See Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U. S. 886 (1970); Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 16–18 (1927); cf. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. In short, none of the various theories of standing asserted by the States in this case overcomes the fundamental Article III problem with this lawsuit.

10 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

against other possible defendants. See, e.g., Wayte, 470 U. S., at 604; Armstrong, 517 U. S., at 459, 463.

Second, as the Solicitor General points out, the standing analysis might differ when Congress elevates defacto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries redressable by a federal court. See Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 3; cf. TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–11); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 20 (1998); Raines, 521 U. S., at 820, n. 3; Lujan, 504 U. S., at 578; Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 617, n. 3. For example, Congress might (i) specifically authorize suits against the Executive Branch by a defined set of plaintiffs who have suffered concrete harms from executive under-enforcement and (ii) specifically authorize the Judiciary to enter appropriate orders requiring additional arrests or prosecutions by the Executive Branch.

Here, however, the relevant statutes do not supply such specific authorization. The statutes, even under the States’ own reading, simply say that the Department “shall” arrest certain noncitizens. Given the “deep-rooted nature of law- enforcement discretion,” a purported statutory arrest mandate, without more, does not entitle any particular plaintiff to enforce that mandate in federal court. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761, 764–765, 767, n. 13; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 835. For an arrest mandate to be enforceable in federal court, we would need at least a “stronger indication” from Congress that judicial review of enforcement discretion is appropriate—for example, specific authorization for particular plaintiffs to sue and for federal courts to order more arrests or prosecutions by the Executive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. We do not take a position on whether such a statute would suffice for Article III purposes; our only point is that no such statute is present in this case.4

——————

4 As the Solicitor General noted, those kinds of statutes, by infringing

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 11 Opinion of the Court

Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a plaintiff arguably could obtain review of agency non-enforcement if an agency “has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” Heckler, 470 U. S., at 833, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 839 (Brennan, J., concurring); cf. 5 U. S. C. §706(1). So too, an extreme case of non-enforcement arguably could exceed the bounds of enforcement discretion and support Article III standing. But the States have not advanced a Heckler-style “abdication” argument in this case or argued that the Executive has entirely ceased enforcing the relevant statutes. Therefore, we do not analyze the standing ramifications of such a hypothetical scenario.

Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. That is because the challenged policy might implicate more than simply the Executive’s traditional enforcement discretion. Cf. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 11–12) (benefits such as work authorization and Medicare eligibility accompanied by non- enforcement meant that the policy was “more than simply a non-enforcement policy”); Texas v. United States, 809 F. 3d 134, 154 (CA5 2015) (Linda R. S. “concerned only nonprosecution,” which is distinct from “both nonprosecution and the conferral of benefits”), aff ’d by an equally divided Court, 579 U. S. 547 (2016). Again, we need

——————

on the Executive’s enforcement discretion, could also raise Article II issues. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 24–25.

12 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

not resolve the Article III consequences of such a policy. Fifth, policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. Cf. Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). But this case does not concern a detention policy, so

we do not address the issue here.5

***************************************

Given the narrow resolution on standing grounds, and the reservations set forth in Section C of Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, in addition to the somewhat different approach of the three concurring Justices, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett, it’s unpredictable what this decision might mean if the DACA challenge now pending before U.S. District Judge Hanen eventually reaches the Supremes. In “point four” of “Section C,” Justice Kavanaugh goes to some length to distinguish a situation “that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status,” citing the Court’s earlier decision in DHS v. Regents, involving a DACA challenge that was decided on APA technical grounds.

Still, this is a strong statement rejecting the attempt of GOP States and GOP lower Federal Court Judges to take over Federal immigration enforcement! And, with Immigration Courts overwhelmed with a largely artificially-inflated 2 million case backlog, many consisting of cases in which relief should be granted elsewhere (like at USCIS) or where removal would actually be detrimental to the interests of the U.S., a reaffirmation of the Executive’s historical authority to set reasonable, practical immigration enforcement priorities could not come soon enough.

In that light, it’s curious why in a case where the ultimate result was lopsided, the Court DENIED the Administration’s motion for a stay pending review of the Fifth Circuit’s and USDC’s wrong orders! This unnecessarily created months of “enforcement chaos” which has been damaging both to individuals and to our national interests.

I also find it interesting that Justice Kavanaugh cited and in part relied upon the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce the law. This was also part of the rationale I used in a 1976 legal opinion written for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen reaffirming the “Legacy” INS’s authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in designating some cases as “non priority.”

That memo stated:

The ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

. . . .

The reasons for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the laws and regulations presently on the books. As a practical matter, therefore, law enforcement officials have to make policy choices as to the most effective and desirable way in which to deploy their limited resources. Thus, for example, police and prosecutors may choose to concentrate on apprehension and prosecution of perpetrators of violent crimes, while choosing not to proceed against those committing so-called “victimless crimes,” such as certain consensual sex acts and possession of small amounts of marihuana. In addition, there are times when defects in the quality, quantity, or method of gathering evidence will make it difficult to prove the matter before a court.

Aside from purely practical considerations, it is also obvious that in enacting a statute the legislature cannot possibly contemplate all of the possible circumstances in which the statute may be applied. In some situations, application of the literal letter of the law would simply be unconscionable and would serve no useful purpose. For instance, a prosecutor may well decide not to proceed against a terminally ill individual, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

You can find a copy of that legal opinion here: https://wp.me/p8eeJm-260. Still relevant, after nearly half a century!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-23-23

🤮👎🏼 AMERICA’S WORST FEDERAL JUDGE ALL TOO FAMILIAR TO IMMIGRATION/HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS — Even Before Targeting Women’s Reproductive Rights, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk Was An Anathema To Human Rights & Racial Justice!

Trump Judges — Trump Federal Judges Tilt Against Democracy
Republished under license

Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/08/abortion-pill-worst-judge-kacsmaryk/

From WashPost:

Opinion by Ruth Marcus

April 8, 2023 at 5:11 p.m. ET

Congratulations are in order for Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The competition is fierce and will remain so, but for now he holds the title: worst federal judge in America.

Not simply for the poor quality of his judicial reasoning, although more, much more, on this in a bit. What really distinguishes Kacsmaryk is the loaded content of his rhetoric — not the language of a sober-minded, impartial jurist but of a zealot, committed more to promoting a cause than applying the law.

Kacsmaryk is the Texas-based judge handpicked by antiabortion advocates — he is the sole jurist who sits in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas — to hear their challenge to the legality of abortion medication.

And so he did, ruling exactly as expected. In an opinion released Friday, Kacsmaryk invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of the abortion drug mifepristone and, for good measure, found that abortion medications cannot be sent by mail or other delivery service under the terms of an 1873 anti-vice law.

Even in states where abortion remains legal. Even though study after study has shown the drug to be safe and effective — far safer, for instance, than over-the-counter Tylenol. Even though — or perhaps precisely because — more than half of abortions in the United States today are performed with abortion medication.

My fury here is not because I fear that Kacsmaryk’s ruling will stand. I don’t think it will, not even with this Supreme Court. Indeed, another federal district judge — just hours after Kacsmaryk’s Good Friday ruling — issued a competing order, instructing the FDA to maintain the existing rules making mifepristone available. Even Kacsmaryk put his ruling on hold for a week; the Justice Department has already filed a notice of appeal; and the dispute is hurtling its way to the Supreme Court. (Nice work getting yourselves out of the business of deciding abortion cases, your honors.)

No, my beef is with ideologues in robes. That Kacsmaryk fits the description is no surprise. Before being nominated to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2017, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the conservative First Liberty Institute. He argued against same-sex marriage, civil rights protections for gay and transgender individuals, the contraceptive mandate and, of course, Roe v. Wade.

. . . .

**********************

“Ideologues in robes!” That’s also a good description of many of the judges appointed by Sessions and Barr to the U.S. Immigration Courts. While there have been a few improvements in the appointment process, the Biden Administration has not effectively addressed the serious institutional dysfunction and anti-immigrant bias at EOIR.

And, let’s remember, EOIR is a “court system” affecting millions of lives and futures that is 100% controlled by the Administration. If this Administration is unwilling or unable to embrace and advance progressive values in a court system they own, how are they going to address other issues of justice, gender, and racial,equity in America?

Indeed, this tone-deaf Administration is now at war with more than 33,000 progressive groups and experts about their scofflaw “death to asylum seekers” regulations. The Administration’s immoral, impractical, and illegal proposal to send up to 30,000 legal asylum seekers to Mexico without due process or fair consideration of their claims for legal protection basically replicates, and in some ways goes even beyond, Kacsmaryk‘s endorsement of the discredited and proven to be deadly “Remain in Mexico” program instituted by Trump and Miller. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=26734&action=edit.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

😎⚖️🗽👍UNEXPECTED BOOST FOR DUE PROCESS & HUMANITY! — SUPREMES ALLOW BIDEN TO TERMINATE SCOFFLAW, CRUEL, FAILED “REMAIN IN MEXICO” TRAVESTY (A/K/A “LET ‘EM DIE ☠️⚰️IN MEXICO”) INITIATED BY TRUMP! — Biden v. Texas, Narrow 5-4 Majority Thwarts White Nationalist Initiative — C.J. Roberts (Opinion), joined by Justices Kavanaugh, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan Save Humanity, Rule of Law, For Now!

Here’s a link to the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf

Here’s the Syllabus by Court staff:

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 21–954. Argued April 26, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security began to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Under MPP, certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under section 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). MPP was implemented pursuant to a provision of the INA that applies to aliens “arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States” and provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security “may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” 8 U. S. C. §1225(b)(2)(C). Following a change in Presidential administrations, the Biden administration announced that it would suspend the program, and on June 1, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum officially terminating it.

The States of Texas and Missouri (respondents) brought suit in the Northern District of Texas against the Secretary and others, asserting that the June 1 Memorandum violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court entered judgment for respondents. The court first concluded that terminating MPP would violate the INA, reasoning that section 1225 of the INA “provides the government two options” with respect to illegal entrants: mandatory detention pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory re- turn pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C). 554 F. Supp. 3d 818, 852. Be- cause the Government was unable to meet its mandatory detention obligations under section 1225(b)(2)(A) due to resource constraints, the court reasoned, terminating MPP would necessarily lead to the systemic violation of section 1225 as illegal entrants were released into the United States. Second, the District Court concluded that the June 1 Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

2

BIDEN v. TEXAS Syllabus

The District Court vacated the June 1 Memorandum and remanded to DHS. It also imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Government to “enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under [section 1225] without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention re- sources.” Id., at 857 (emphasis in original).

While the Government’s appeal was pending, the Secretary released the October 29 Memoranda, which again announced the termination of MPP and explained anew his reasons for doing so. The Government then moved to vacate the injunction on the ground that the October 29 Memoranda had superseded the June 1 Memorandum. But the Court of Appeals denied the motion and instead affirmed the District Court’s judgment in full. With respect to the INA question, the Court of Ap- peals agreed with the District Court’s analysis that terminating the program would violate the INA, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The Court of Appeals also held that “[t]he October 29 Memoranda did not constitute a new and separately reviewable ‘final agency action.’ ” 20 F. 4th 928, 951.

Held: The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action. Pp. 8–25.

(a) Beginning with jurisdiction, the injunction that the District Court entered in this case violated 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1). See Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___, ___. But section 1252(f )(1) does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to reach the merits of an appeal even where a lower court enters a form of relief barred by that provision. Section 1252(f )(1) withdraws a district court’s “jurisdiction or authority” to grant a particular form of relief. It does not deprive lower courts of all subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under sections 1221 through 1232 of the INA.

The text of the provision makes that clear. Section 1252(f )(1) deprives courts of the power to issue a specific category of remedies: those that “enjoin or restrain the operation of ” the relevant sections of the statute. And Congress included that language in a provision whose title—“Limit on injunctive relief ”—makes clear the narrowness of its scope. Moreover, the provision contains a parenthetical that explicitly preserves this Court’s power to enter injunctive relief. If section 1252(f )(1) deprived lower courts of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate any non-individual claims under sections 1221 through 1232, no such claims could ever arrive at this Court, rendering the specific carveout for Supreme Court injunctive relief nugatory.

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 Syllabus

Statutory structure likewise confirms this conclusion. Elsewhere in section 1252, where Congress intended to deny subject matter jurisdiction over a particular class of claims, it did so unambiguously. See, e.g., §1252(a)(2) (entitled “Matters not subject to judicial review”). Finally, this Court previously encountered a virtually identical situation in Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U. S. ___, and proceeded to reach the merits of the suit notwithstanding the District Court’s apparent violation of section 1252(f )(1). Pp. 8–13.

(b) Turning to the merits, section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U. S. ___, ___.

Respondents and the Court of Appeals concede that point, but urge an inference from the statutory structure: because section 1225(b)(2)(A) makes detention mandatory, they argue, the otherwise- discretionary return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) becomes mandatory when the Secretary violates that mandate. The problem is that the statute does not say anything like that. The statute says “may.” If Congress had intended section 1225(b)(2)(C) to operate as a mandatory cure of any noncompliance with the Government’s detention obligations, it would not have conveyed that intention through an unspoken inference in conflict with the unambiguous, express term “may.” The contiguous-territory return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary—and remains discretionary notwithstanding any violation of section 1225(b)(2)(A).

The historical context in which section 1225(b)(2)(C) was adopted confirms the plain import of its text. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) was added to the statute more than 90 years after the “shall be detained” language that appears in section 1225(b)(2)(A). And the provision was enacted in response to a BIA decision that had questioned the legality of the contiguous-territory return practice. Moreover, since its enactment, every Presidential administration has interpreted section 1225(b)(2)(C) as purely discretionary, notwithstanding the consistent shortfall of funds to comply with section 1225(b)(2)(A).

The foreign affairs consequences of mandating the exercise of contiguous-territory return likewise confirm that the Court of Appeals erred. Interpreting section 1225(b)(2)(C) as a mandate imposes a significant burden upon the Executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico, one that Congress likely did not intend section 1225(b)(2)(C) to impose. And finally, the availability of parole as an

4

BIDEN v. TEXAS Syllabus

alternative means of processing applicants for admission, see 8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A), additionally makes clear that the Court of Ap- peals erred in holding that the INA required the Government to continue implementing MPP. Pp. 13–18.

(c) The Court of Appeals also erred in holding that “[t]he October 29 Memoranda did not constitute a new and separately reviewable ‘final agency action.’ ” 20 F. 4th, at 951. Once the District Court vacated the June 1 Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration, DHS had two options: elaborate on its original reasons for taking action or “ ‘deal with the problem afresh’ by taking new agency action.” Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___. The Secretary selected the second option from Regents: He accepted the District Court’s vacatur and dealt with the problem afresh. The October 29 Memoranda were therefore final agency action for the same reasons that the June 1 Memorandum was final agency action: Both “mark[ed] the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and resulted in “rights and obligations [being] determined.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178.

The various rationales offered by respondents and the Court of Ap- peals in support of the contrary conclusion lack merit. First, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent it understood itself to be reviewing an abstract decision apart from the specific agency actions contained in the June 1 Memorandum and October 29 Memoranda. Second, and relatedly, the October 29 Memoranda were not a mere post hoc rationalization of the June 1 Memorandum. The prohibition on post hoc rationalization applies only when the agency proceeds by the first option from Regents. Here, the Secretary chose the second option from Re- gents and “issue[d] a new rescission bolstered by new reasons absent from the [June 1] Memorandum.” 591 U. S., at ___. Having returned to the drawing table, the Secretary was not subject to the charge of post hoc rationalization.

Third, respondents invoke Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. ___. But nothing in this record suggests a “significant mis- match between the decision the Secretary made and the rationale he provided.” Id., at ___. Relatedly, the Court of Appeals charged that the Secretary failed to proceed with a sufficiently open mind. But this Court has previously rejected criticisms of agency closemindedness based on an identity between proposed and final agency action. See Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U. S. ___, ___. Finally, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent it viewed the Government’s decision to appeal the District Court’s in- junction as relevant to the question of the October 29 Memoranda’s status as final agency action. Nothing prevents an agency from under- taking new agency action while simultaneously appealing an adverse

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 5 Syllabus

judgment against its original action. Pp. 18–25. 20 F. 4th 928, reversed and remanded.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but the first sentence.

************************

Credit where credit is due. At least in this particular case, Chief Justice Roberts and the much-maligned Justice Kavanaugh probably have saved many lives of already-born humans.

Breyer’s “Last Hurrah.” I think this was Justice Breyer’s last case, fittingly a victory for reasonableness and humanity. As of noon today, he was succeeded by Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson, the first African American female Justice! Good luck to her. I hope she can convince her right-wing colleagues to “do the right thing” on at least a few cases!

Not out of the woods yet? The case now goes back to to the 5th Circuit and a Trumpy USDJ — not the best forum for asylum applicants seeking justice.

Will they do better? Ending the toxic, inhumane, and ineffective “Remain in Mexico Program” is one thing. Replacing it with a viable asylum adjudication system that will actually efficiently grant protection to the many refugees at our border who have been victims of a biased, anti-asylum, non-expert decision-making process is quite another. It starts with tossing the BIA and the many EOIR Judges who aren’t following asylum law and aren’t able to grant asylum and replacing them with real expert judges who can get the job done, positively guide Asylum Officers, and make sure they follow proper legal interpretations. To date, that’s been something that Garland and the Administration have been unwilling and/or unable to do — at least to the extent required to make due process, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law functional at our borders.

Glimmer of hope (maybe)? In her dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett went to great lengths to come up with reasons not to take jurisdiction over this “life or death” matter in its current posture. But, unlike the other three dissenters, she stated that she agreed with the majority “on the merits” of the case. That makes it at least possible that there could be as many as six potential votes for fair and humane treatment of asylum applicants by the Administration if the jurisdictional hurdle can be overcome. No guarantees. But something to think about — particularly in light of Alito’s snarky, White Nationalist nonsense and anti-immigrant myths reflected in his separate dissenting opinion.

Alioto defines “rock bottom” judicial performance. For example, in the first paragraph of his dissent, Alito says this:

In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol reported more than 1.7 million encounters with aliens along the Mexican border.1 When it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the Government simply release the alien in this country and hope that the alien will show up for the hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided?

First he mis-states the law. By no means are all individuals who come to the border or are apprehended in the vicinity thereof entitled to “hearings” on admissibility. All of those without entry documents are subject to summary removal by a DHS Enforcement Agent. Only those who claim a fear of return to their home countries are entitled to an expeditious review of their claims by a (supposedly) well-trained Asylum Officer. Further, only those who establish the necessary “credible fear” of harm (or in some cases a “reasonable fear”) are entitled to have their cases for asylum determined on the merits by either an Asylum Officer or an EOIR Immigration Judge (or both). So, many of those appearing at the border are summarily removed without any hearings at all.

Thousands of those who pass credible fear and are awaiting “merits hearings” are imprisoned in DHS facilities in conditions that probably would fail constitutional scrutiny if applied to convicted felons. Those poor conditions are intended, at least in part, to demoralize and coerce individuals into abandoning claims for protection. They also exponentially decrease the chances of receiving competent pro bono representation and documenting and presenting their cases for life-preserving protection. This is significant, because they too often face EOIR judges with questionable expert judicial qualifications who are essentially “programmed to deny asylum.” Indeed, a “Garland gimmick” for recent arrivals — so-called “expedited dockets” — produced nearly 100% asylum denials as compared with the nationwide rate of 67%. For years, ICE detention centers, many of them operated by private contractors, have been notorious as places “where asylum cases go to die.”

Contrary to the bogus implication of Alito’s statement that one has to “hope” that individuals show up for hearings, many have immigration bonds — some punatively high. When given a chance to obtain qualified representation, and thereby to understand the system and their obligations thereunder, the vast majority of asylum applicants voluntarily appear at their hearings (some many times due to the EOIR practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”), win or lose. And, perhaps not surprisingly, they succeed in winning their cases at rates that are many times higher than those forced to proceed without representation.

Indeed, a government actually interested in making the legal system work, rather than ginning up nativist myths about asylum seekers, would cut the “cruel and inhumane gimmicks” like “Remain in Mexico” and detention in the “New American Gulag” (NAG”) and instead invest in training competent pro bono or “low bono” representatives, temporarily resettling applicants to those jurisdictions with good NGOs and where the Immigration Judges are known to be scholarly and fair in evaluating asylum cases, and replacing poorly qualified Immigration Judges with experts able to competently perform these life or death functions at the “retail level” of our justice system in a fair and efficient matter consistent with due process.

Alito also repeats, apparently for prejudicial dramatic effect, the oft-used but potentially misleading figure of 1.7 million “encounters” by CBP. But, since the legal asylum system at our border was improperly dismantled by the Trump Administration, many of these represent the same individual or individuals, repeatedly encountered and illegally returned without any process whatsoever, who seek only the legal forum to present their claim to authorities to which they are entitled under both domestic and international law. This right has been systematically denied to them by both the Trump and Biden Administrations and by mal-functioning Federal Judges, at all levels, who have failed to uphold the rule of law as it applies to the most vulnerable among us. Additionally, a knowledgeable jurist would take any statistics furnished by the notoriously unreliable DHS with a “grain of salt.”

The lack of understanding of how immigration law operates, the nativist-driven misinterpretations by the Trump Administration embodied in this dissent, and the lack of intellectual integrity in furthering nativist myths and intentional exaggerations to describe a group of individuals who merely seek legal justice under both our laws and international standards is a graphic illustration of who does not belong on our highest Court. If we are really committed to equal justice and fundamental fairness in the American justice system, we should insist that all of those nominated for our Supreme Court demonstrate significant experience representing individual foreign nationals in the Immigration Courts — the “life or death retail level” of our justice system.

Right now, those so-called “courts” are an embarrassing and dysfunctional “parody of justice” to which neither Justice Alito nor any of his colleagues would want to submit their own lives and futures or those of anyone they truly cared about. That’s the very definition of dehumanization and “Dred Scottification of the other” that Justice Alito seems so curiously eager to advance. Perhaps, that’s because he lacks the necessary empathy and perspective to see life from “the other side of the bench” as the rest of humanity does.

I’d like to think that Alito is capable of change and growth. Most, if not all, humans are. After all, he’s appointed for life, so he isn’t going anywhere soon. But, I won’t hold my breath.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-30

FINALLY, LEADING DEMS IN CONGRESS DEMAND END TO BIDEN’S TITLE 42 CHARADE! — NDPA All-Star 🌟🦸🏻‍♀️ Blaine Bookey Speaks Out For Ukrainians & Other Legal Asylum Seekers Being Abused 🤮 By Biden Administration @ The Southern Border!

MarIa Sacchetti reports for WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/10/title42-border-asylum-democrats-trump/

Leading Senate Democrats demanded that the Biden administration immediately end a Trump-era policy that blocks asylum-seeking migrants from crossing land borders into the United States, after lawyers said U.S. Customs and Border Protection expelled a single mother of three who had traveled from Ukraine to Mexico seeking refuge.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the “desperate” Ukrainian family at a news conference Thursday and said he was deeply disappointed that the Biden administration has dragged out the Trump-era policy, which a federal appeals court in D.C. last week called “questionable.” The Trump administration issued the order two years ago under Title 42, which is the public health code. Since then, officials have expelled more than 1.6 million migrants to countries such as Haiti and Mexico.

“The United States is supposed to welcome refugees with open arms, not put them in additional danger by denying them a chance to plead their case and leaving them at the mercy of criminals and smugglers,” Schumer said, joined by advocates for immigrants. “Now’s the time to stop the madness.”

Courts issue new directives to Biden on border expulsions

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added that the policy “has created life-threatening conditions” for migrants. He called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the order under President Donald Trump and has extended it under President Biden, to rescind it.

. . . .

Sofiia, 34, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she has family sheltering in their basements in Ukraine, said in a telephone interview that her family had enjoyed a good life there. She worked as a Hebrew teacher and lived in her father’s house. They left as bombs grew closer.

“I was seriously afraid for my life and the life of my kids,” she said in English, one of four languages that she speaks.

She said she and her children — ages 6, 12 and 14 — flung suitcases stuffed with clothes and medicines into her old Citroen and drove straight to Moldova, the closest border, and then into Romania, where they traveled to Germany and caught a flight to Mexico. She said that they tried to enter legally twice, once by car and again by foot, and that officials rejected them both times, citing the Title 42 order.

“I was surprised that they don’t even want to listen,” she said. “I was trying to tell them that I have tests and I am vaccinated but they told me, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’”

She said she does not speak Spanish and was crying on the bridge in Mexico when lawyer Blaine Bookey spotted her. Bookey, the legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California’s Hastings law school, was there with her students to aid Haitian migrants facing similar troubles.

ADVERTISEMENT

00:00

Bookey said Customs and Border Protection told her that they would consider admitting the Ukrainian family. They were planning to try again Thursday, she said, adding that shelters in Mexico are filled with other would-be refugees who are not eligible to enter.

“There’s families like this that are showing up at the border from all sorts of countries from similar levels of violence. They deserve process to apply for asylum,” Bookey said. “This case really brings it home for people how just problematic this policy is.”

*********************

Read Maria’s full article at the link.

Rhetoric over action!

“Do as I say, not as I do!”

More cowardly performances from AG Garland and SG Prelogar who continue to “defend the indefensible,” putting politics over their constitutional duty to speak up for due process, human rights, racial justice, adherence to international conventions, and the rule of law.

The “COVID emergency” appears to be “over” everywhere in the U.S., even in areas with significant infection rates, EXCEPT for asylum seekers at the Southern Border who never were a major threat anyway.

“Saying no” to desperate Ukrainian mothers and children seeking refuge in the U.S. That’s ”law enforcement?” That’s how your tax dollars are being spent? Do these count as “border apprehensions?”

The Dem leaders are right to speak out. But, they waited far too long to do so. This travesty has been going on since Day 1 of the Biden Administration.

The only “hero” 🌟 here is Blaine Bookey and others like her who have the guts and courage to stand up for equal justice for all when politicos, judges, and public officials “tank!”

Meanwhile, although the opposition to Biden’s scofflaw policy hasn’t restored the rule of law for most asylum seekers, it might have generated at least a modest reaction. CBS News reports that the CDC has revoked the (bogus) Title 42 authority to bar the entry of unaccompanied children seeking asylum. News: https://apple.news/Anfp9S-UAQFqT5PWRc-8u2A

This appears to be a response to the attack on this group of vulnerable children by Trump-appointed righty anti-immigrant zealot U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman and his motley gang of GOP state AGs. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/03/05/%f0%9f%a4%aftitle-42-madness-even-as-dc-circuit-bars-returns-to-persecution-or-torture-trump-federal-judge-in-texas-abuses-children%f0%9f%a4%ae%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f-circuit-findings-of-ill/

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-12-22

🤯TITLE 42 MADNESS: Even As DC Circuit Bars Returns To Persecution &/Or Torture, Trump Federal Judge In Texas Abuses Children!🤮☠️ — Circuit Findings Of Illegal Returns To “Stomach-Churning” Conditions & No Evidence Supporting Bogus Title 42 Orders Fails To Motivate “Robed Ones” To Reinstate The Rule Of Law! — Meanwhile, In Texas, Rogue Righty Judge Takes Over Immigration, Targets Vulnerable Kids For Rape, Torture, Death!

“Floaters” — Trump Judge Mark T. Pittman has a very explicit vision of the future for brown-skinned children seeking protection from “White Nationalist Nation.”
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

Here’s the DC Circuit Decision:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F6289C9DDB487716852587FB00546E14/$file/21-5200-1937710.pdf

Here’s the decision by Trump scofflaw U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf

Here’s a link to “Instant Twitter Analysis” by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council:

https://twitter.com/reichlinmelnick/status/1499891832569876481?s=21

ThreadOpen appSee new TweetsConversationAaron Reichlin-Melnick@ReichlinMelnick🚨Absolute madness. The same day the DC Circuit rules that families can’t be expelled under Title 42 to places they will be persecuted, a federal judge in Texas just overruled the CDC and ordered the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf…

. . . .

*************************

Read the rest of Aaron’s feed at the link.

Although the DC Circuit basically confirmed that the evidence produced by plaintiffs showed illegal returns to death and that there was little, if any, support for the draconian Title 42 exclusion order, the relief granted was unacceptably narrow. The order merely directed the Administration to cease returning individuals to countries where they would be persecuted or tortured.

That order is weak because:

It doesn’t specify any particular fair procedure that must be followed by DHS in determining who faces persecution or torture. That appears to leave open the possibility of DHS employing bogus “summary determinations by enforcement agents” rather than using Asylum Officers and having cases referred to Immigration Courts.
There are no limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals and/or return them to other countries.
The standard for so-called “withholding of removal” to persecution is “more likely than not” as opposed to the more generous “well-founded fear” or “reasonable possibility” standard for asylum (although individuals should be able to invoke the regulatory “presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution).
Even if granted, withholding of removal does not provide individuals with “durable legal status” nor does it allow them to access the asylum system, from which they apparently would remain barred under Title 42.

Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas is a Trump appointee with strong ties to the Federalist Society and a very loose grasp on domestic and international laws and procedures for protecting children.

It’s interesting, if disheartening, to compare the “overt wishy-washiness” of the DC Circuit Judges who were timidly, “sort of” trying to protect at least some minimal legal and human rights with the “in your face,” overtly anti-immigrant, arrogant tone and ridiculous self-assuredness with which activist righty District Judge Mark Pittman advanced his absurdist notion that the White Nationalist agenda of “protecting” America from the “non-threat” of brown-skinned children merited his simultaneous assumption of the roles of President, Secretary of DHS, Attorney General, and for a good measure, Congress.

Obviously, the “judicial restraint,” supposedly a hallmark of modern conservatism, was just a “smoke screen” for the GOP’s activist anti-social, anti-immigrant, racially charged agenda. That’s not news to many of us, although it seems to have gone “over the head” of many in the Biden Administration and many Dems on the Hill.

It shows once again why “Team Garland’s” indolent, often uninformed, and floundering approach to immigrant justice under law is being steamrolled by Trump holdovers and crusading right-wing Federal Judges. And, you wonder why Dems can’t figure out what they stand for and what their “line in the sand” is!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Garland and other weak-kneed Biden officials can’t decide how much of the leftover “Miller Lite” anti-asylum, anti-humanitarian, anti-due-process policy they want to retain and defend and how much effort, if any, they want to put into re-establishing human rights and the rule of law.

One observation: After more than one-year in office, the Biden Administration is no closer to having an orderly, functional, due-process-oriented asylum system in place and ready for the border than they were on January 20, 2021! The expert Asylum Officers and qualified Immigration Judges who are necessary to operate such a system are still few and far between, and the program to facilitate legal assistance for those seeking legal protection at the border is all but non-existent.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-22

⚖️🛡⚔️ROUND TABLE CONDEMNS RESTART OF “REMAIN IN MEXICO!”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

RT Statement – MPP Restart (Final)

December 6 , 2021
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system.
There has been no greater affront to due process, fairness, and transparency than the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Instituted under the Trump Administration, it appears to have been motivated by nothing other than cruelty.
Tragically, to comply with a most misguided court order, the Biden Administration, which promised us better, is today not only resuming the program with most of its cruelty intact, but expanding its scope to now apply to nationals of all Western Hemisphere countries.
In 1997, the BIA issued a precedent decision, Matter of S-M-J-, that remains binding on Immigration Judges and ICE prosecutors. In that decision, the BIA recognized our government’s “obligation to uphold international refugee law, including the United States’ obligation to extend refuge where such refuge is warranted. That is, immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.”1
One of the cases cited by the BIA was Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC,2 a decision which concluded: “We find it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.”
The MPP policy constitutes the pounding into submission of those who, if found to qualify for asylum, we are obliged by international law to admit, protect, and afford numerous fundamental rights. The “pounding” in this instance is literal, with reports of those lawfully pursuing their right to seek asylum in the U.S. being subject to kidnappings, extortion, sexual abuse, and other
1 Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 728 (BIA 1997). 2 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

threats and physical attacks.3 This is the antithesis of fairness, in which the parties are not afforded equal access to justice.
Concerning due process, a statement issued by the union representing USCIS Asylum Officers, whose members interview asylum applicants subjected to the program, noted that MPP denies those impacted of meaningful access to counsel, and further impedes their ability to gather evidence and access necessary resources to prepare their cases.4 As former judges who regularly decided asylum claims, we can vouch for the importance of representation and access to evidence, including the opinions of country condition experts, in successfully obtaining asylum. Yet according to a report issued during the Trump Administration, only four percent of those forced to remain in Mexico under MPP were able to obtain representation.5 As of course, DHS attorneys are not similarly impeded, the policy thus fails to afford the parties a level playing field.
As to transparency, one former Immigration Judge from our group who attempted to observe MPP hearings under the prior administration was prevented from doing so despite having the consent of the asylum seeker to be present. A letter from our group to the EOIR Director and the Chief Immigration Judge expressing our concern went unanswered.
Like many others who understand the importance that a fair and independent court system plays in a free and democratic society, we had hoped to have seen the last of this cruel policy. And like so many others, we are beyond disappointed to learn that we were wrong. On this day in which MPP is being restarted, we join so many others both within and outside of government in demanding better.
We urge the Biden Administration to end its unwarranted expansion of MPP; to instead do everything in its power to permanently end the program; and to insure that in the interim, any court-ordered restart of MPP first accord with our international treaty obligations towards refugees, and with the requirements of due process and fairness on which our legal system is premised.
Contact Jeffrey S. Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com
3 See the compilation of of publicly reported cases of violent attacks on those returned to Mexico under MPP by Human Rights First, available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/ PubliclyReportedMPPAttacks2.19.2021.pdf.
4 American Federation of Government Employees, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119, “Union Representing USCIS Asylum Officers Condemns Re-Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols” (Dec. 2, 2021).
5 Syracuse University, TRAC Immigration, “Contrasting Experiences: MPP vs. Non-MPP Immigration Court Cases,” available at https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/587/.

***********************

Thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for leading this effort. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve with you and our other colleagues on the Round Table!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-06-21

🤮👎🏽GREGG ABBOTT IS A MISOGYNIST MORON, A RACST VOTE SUPPRESSOR, & OTHER STUFF WE ALREADY KNEW FROM BESS LIVIN @ VANITY FAIR!

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

Levin Report: Dumbass Texas Governor Claims No-Exceptions Abortion Law Is Fine Because He’s Going to “Eliminate” Rape

View this email in your browser

If you’re a person who believes it’s literally no one’s business who gets an abortion other than that of the pregnant individual undergoing the procedure, you’ve likely been incandescent with rage since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided to allow Texas to proceed with an insane law that prohibits terminating pregnancies after six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. That anger likely stems from not just the law itself but having to listen to the chorus of dumbass voices who’ve come out backing Texas for effectively banning people from obtaining an abortion, from Tucker Carlson, who opined that the law shows “democracy does still exist,” to California gubernatorial candidate Caitlyn Jenner, who ironically commented that she supports Texas’s right to choose its own laws.

Of course, another one of those voices is the Lone Star state governor Greg Abbott, who signed the bill into law in May, saying at the time, “Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” and that the Texas Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that…ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.” (That both sides of the aisle supported the bill would be news to Texas Democrats, as just a single one of them voted for it.)

Asked on Tuesday why his state felt the need to “force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term,” Abbott responded like only a person who really, really hates women can, claiming, “It doesn’t require that at all.” He added: “Because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion, so for one it doesn’t [require] that. That said, however, let’s make something very clear. Rape is a crime and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the fact that Abbott is claiming that because the law allows for abortion up to six weeks, it’s not forcing anyone to do anything. As doctors, people who’ve been pregnant before, and people who’ve bothered to read a book on the subject before crafting legislation on it have noted, by the time a person misses her first period, she’s already roughly four weeks pregnant. That means that under Texas law, someone would have no more than two weeks, not six, to determine she’s pregnant and decide whether or not to get an abortion. Even in the case of people who are actively trying to get pregnant, that window can narrow even further for numerous reasons including if they have irregular cycles. Usually, then, one would make an appointment with a doctor to confirm the pregnancy, and as Abbott may or may not know, healthcare in America is not the greatest, so she may not be able to be seen for several weeks. And that hugely generous two weeks is not only a joke for many people actively trying to have a child, but for the majority of people who are not. “It is extremely possible and very common for people to get to the six-week mark and not know they are pregnant,” Jennifer Villavicencio, M.D., lead for equity transformation at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The New York Times. In other words, Abbott should fuck all the way off with his “obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.”

Then there’s the hilarious remark that he’s going to eliminate rape in Texas, so not allowing individuals to terminate pregnancies that result from heinous crimes is a moot point. Really, Abbott is going to make Texas rape-free? If he had that power, why didn’t he do it prior to enacting this law? The victims of the 14,824 reported rapes in his state in 2019, when he was four years into his first term, would probably love to know! (For those of you keeping up at home, that figure made Texas the No. 1 state for rape that year.)

Of course, Abbott is far from the first politician to say something ridiculously idiotic about abortion and rape. In fact, he joins a long line of assholes who’ve smugly offered their moronic two cents on the matter, an illustrious group that includes:

The Ohio state legislature, which introduced a bill in 2019 requiring doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into the uterus, or face charges of “abortion murder,” despite the fact that such a procedure is medically impossible;

Former Texas state representative Jodie Laubenberg, who claimed while in office that rape victims don’t need access to legal abortion, because they can get “cleaned out” with rape kits, which obviously is not at all how rape kits work;

Representative Michael Burgess, who somehow obtained a medical degree in 1977, and declared that male fetuses masturbate in utero—naturally, there is no evidence of this—, so abortions shouldn’t be allowed;

Former North Carolina state representative Henry Aldridge, who once said, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.” (Medical authorities do not agree with this);

Former congressman Todd Akin, who boldly declared on the campaign trail: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Welcome to the club, Greg! Can’t wait to hear you parse the nuances of putting $10,000 bounties on the heads of individuals trying to help people escape your barbaric law.

In other Abbott news…

When he’s not signing and defending disgraceful abortion bills, he’s disenfranchising millions of his constituents. Per Bloomberg:

Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed one of the nation’s most aggressive laws curbing access to the ballot, joining a wave of such restrictions enacted after former President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The legislature passed the measure last month after an exodus from the state by Democratic lawmakers during the first of two special sessions. After the walkout sputtered, Republican lawmakers passed the bill without delay.

Republicans have spent months raising doubts about the 2020 election, which experts say was one of the nation’s most secure. Now, supporters of new state laws say too many voters have lost faith in voting systems, and must be reassured.

“We must have trust and confidence in our elections,” Abbott said at a signing ceremony in Tyler, Texas. “The bill that I’m about to sign helps to achieve that goal. It ensures that every eligible voter will have the opportunity to vote.” Of course, that’s an interesting way to describe a law that makes it harder to vote, by, among other things, ending drive-thru voting, limiting mail-in voting, and endowing partisan poll watchers with more power. In a tweet, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote “This law is unconstitutional and anti-democratic. Texas—we’ll see you in court. Again.” Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic U.S. representative from El Paso, wrote in a statement: “Governor Abbott is restricting the freedom to vote for millions of Texans. Instead of working on issues that actually matter, like protecting school kids from Covid or fixing our failing electrical grid, Abbott is focused on rigging our elections and implementing extreme, right-wing policies.”

. . . .

*********************

You can check out the rest of the always lively and entertaining “Levin Report” at the above link. Like their lost idol, Abbott & DeSantis are plumbing the absolute bottom of American politics and actually killing and irreparably harming their “constituents” as they do it. Undoubtedly, that will make them “heroes” in today’s existentially dangerous “anti-heroic, anti-democracy” GOP!

PWS

09-08-21

C-SPAN: PROFESSOR GEOFFREY HOFFMAN EXPLAINS FAILED SOUTHERN BORDER POLICIES & LOUSY JUDICIAL DECISIONS ENABLING THEM! — Watch Geoffrey Patiently Rebuff A Slew Of Uninformed Nativist “Call-Ins” — Truth Is, MPP & Illegal Use Of Title 42 Resulted In Over 6,300 Violent Incidents Of “rape, kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking and other assaults against migrants who were deported to Mexico or people who were prevented from seeking asylum at the U.S. border under Title 42!” — More “Inconvenient Truth” For Ill-Informed (& Rude) Nativists: Immigrants Of All Types, Including Undocumented, Are Keeping American Society & Our Economy Afloat & Are Our Hope For The Future!

Here’s the video of Geoffrey (approx. 40 minutes):

https://www.c-span.org/video/?514241-3/washington-journal-geoffrey-hoffman-discusses-biden-immigration-policy&live

Here’s the ugly truth about what two Administrations and some really bad Federal Judges have done to our vulnerable fellow humans seeking legal refuge at our borders:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/-live-fear-6000-migrants-mexico-violently-attacked-rcna1783

I refer to this as the “harsh reality that the nativist Ted Cruz ‘let ‘em enjoy the beaches in Cancun’ crowd doesn’t get!”

And, here’s the truth about migrants helping our nation thrive and who are a key component of our hopes for the future. Progressives and their allies must double down and act upon these truths to combat the type of ridiculous, dangerous, anti- American nativist lies and myths that were driving some of the misinformed callers, also pushed by the “insurrectionist wing” of the GOP:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/state-of-the-american-dream/shi-undocumented-workers-rebuilding-america.html__;!!LkSTlj0I!RcKFXMY1liB3z78Z7LQwEgVggJK2JUSoGlwyO74myivmVNhy6BCynOqMpdYVknPMoicnXQ$

Significantly, this article came from the George W. Bush Institute, hardly a “left wing think tank.”

“Geoffrey’s 40 minutes” shows that there is, indeed, an imminent threat to American democracy, leadership, and future prosperity out there. But, it definitely does not come from migrants! A nation where about 98% of the population came from immigrant lineage can’t afford to turn our backs on today’s immigrants.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-21

⚖️🤮👨🏻‍⚖️☠️ SUPREMELY BAD! — There’s a “problem with late-night emergency orders written as haikus on Post-it notes stuck to the front doors of the Supreme Court . . . !” — The return of “Dred Scottification” & covering for naked White Nationalist policies by our highest Court throws the entire U.S. justice system into chaos!

Grim Reaper — A robed GOP Justice, carrying a copy of Dred Scott and the tool of right-wing extremism, heads for secret meeting to take action against brown-skinned refugees!
Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

Dahlia Lithwick
Supreme Court Reporter
Slate
Wikimedia Commons — Public Domain

https://apple.news/ACG8I3-YvTh2RWP68SwTi2A

The Supreme Court Has Let a Lone Trump Judge Take Over Biden’s Foreign Policy

The six conservative justices blessed a rogue decision reviving Trump’s odious attack on refugees.

by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern

AUGUST 25 2021 8:47 PM

On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court issued one of the most radical orders in recent memory—and it did it in three sentences, unsigned. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative justices attacked the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy (a principle it had vehemently preserved throughout the Trump presidency) by compelling the Biden administration to revive Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required all asylum-seekers who arrive at the Southern border—including many fleeing violence in Central America—to wait for their U.S. immigration hearings in Mexico. This 2019 policy, the product of extensive negotiations between the Trump administration and the Mexican government, has been suspended for about 17 months. On Aug. 13, however, a single federal judge issued a nationwide injunction ordering the government to reinstate the long-dormant program immediately. Late Tuesday, the Supreme Court blessed this unprecedented hostile takeover of the executive’s immigration policies without bothering to explain how or why.

The implications of Tuesday’s decision are profoundly disturbing. . . .

Perhaps the most perverse aspect of the litigation over “Remain in Mexico”—also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP—is that the policy itself is illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act does allow the government to return a narrow class of migrants to “contiguous territory” while they await hearings. But, as a federal appeals court explained in 2020, the law does not allow the government to send the vast majority of asylum-seekers back to Mexico to await hearings. Doing so violates the United States’ treaty obligations as implemented in the INA, which bar the government from sending refugees back to countries where they fear persecution.

. . . .

As we have suggested in the recent past, the problem with late-night emergency orders written as haikus on Post-it notes stuck to the front doors of the Supreme Court isn’t just that the parties must scramble, without guidance, to discern what it is the court wants them to do. In this case, perhaps tens of thousands of desperate asylum-seekers and their families have absolutely no clue as to what the law is now and why. We have no idea what even constitutes an emergency, or which parties have standing, or what the legal reasoning might be.

Not very long ago, the high court used its shadow docket to spank what it deemed runaway district court judges arrogating power to set immigration policy in violation of Trump’s orders. Now, the same shadow docket is being used to hand federal immigration powers to runaway district court judges, with no rule or principle set forth beyond the fact that Biden should just lose, because they say so.

*****************

Under Roberts, the Supremes are looking more and more like the deadly EOIR Star Chambers/Clown Courts!☠️⚰️🤡 Shamefully, the “Roberts Six” have “revived” the “essence” of perhaps the worst Supremes’ decision in U.S. history, Dred Scott, and gotten away with applying it to people of color in the 21st Century!

They have elevated utter BS and fabricated “injuries” manufactured in bad faith by vile right wing GOP State AGs over the human rights, lives, and human dignity of refugees seeking asylum! In particular, they have targeted bown-skinned women, children, and families legally seeking refuge! This is progress? Seems like the definition of “judicial cowardice” to me!

What kind of “crimes against humanity” are the “GOP 6” complicit in? Try refugees “kidnapped, raped and even killed as a direct result of this policy. They came to our doorstep with a belief in America — and our government sent them into danger.” https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-24/supreme-court-biden-ending-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy?utm_id=36127&sfmc_id=2413253

Meanwhile Garland inexcusably has failed to reform his Immigration Courts by replacing unqualified Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges selected by his predecessors under highly questionable procedures with well-qualified progressive judges who are experts in due process and human rights.

Building a progressive Immigration Judiciary at EOIR is absolutely necessary to developing the legal skills to hold the anti-American far right at bay and eventually creating a better Article III Judiciary that will actually stand up for due process and equal justice for all persons in America. Something the “Roberts 6” have scandalously and spinelessly failed to do!🤮👎🏽

Better Judges for better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

🤮👎🏽🏴‍☠️ SUPREMES’ GOP MAJORITY STUFFS BIDEN, TAKES OVER BORDER ENFORCEMENT, REINSTATES IMMORAL, ILLEGAL ASSAULT ON REFUGEES OF COLOR — MPP WILL CONTINUE TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS, CAUSE REFUGEE SUFFERING, DEATHS, AT BORDER & IN MEXICO!

By Robert Barnes @ WashPost

LToday at 9:28 p.m. EDT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Biden administration must comply with a lower court’s ruling to reinstate President Donald Trump’s policy that required many asylum seekers to wait outside the United States for their cases to be decided.

The administration had asked the court to put on hold a federal judge’s order that the “Remain in Mexico” policy known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) had to be immediately reimplemented. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled earlier this month that the Biden administration did not provide an adequate reason for getting rid of the policy and that its procedures regarding asylum seekers who enter the country were unlawful.

Biden issues new immigration orders, while signaling cautious approach

Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the court’s conservative majority agreed that the administration had not done enough to justify changing the policy.

The administration “failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious,” the court said in a short, unsigned order. In such emergency matters, the court often does not elaborate on its reasoning.

It said Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have granted the administration’s request. The three also gave no reason.

The action could be an ominous sign for the new administration. The court is considering a request that it dissolve the pandemic-related evictions moratorium implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about which the court’s most conservative justices have already expressed skepticism.

The court often showed deference to the Trump administration in such emergency matters, including when the MPP was first implemented.

. . . .

*************

Read Robert’s full article at the link.

Not too surprising, given the Roberts Court’s fairly consistent disregard for human rights, the rule of law, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and ill-concealed contempt for racial justice and people of color! They had already gone “belly up” on MPP after it was properly blocked by lower Federal Courts during the Trump regime.

It’s going to be a long four years for American democracy, human rights, and individuals of color if the Dems can’t get it together, eliminate the filibuster, and enact some legislation while they are still in control of all three branches. But, it’s the Dems, so don’t count on much besides some hand-wringing and feckless rhetoric.

And to be fair, the Biden Administration’s continued lawless use of Title 42 to suspend the rule of law for many at the border compliments both the Trump regime’s xenophobic policies and the Supremes’ dissing of people of color. Dred Scott is still alive and kicking in 21st Century America, even as our nation grows more diverse.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-21

ADDENDUM:

As recently posted by Dean Kevin Johnson on ImmigrationProf Blog:

I received the following statement on the ruling by e-mail from Kate Melloy Goettel, Legal Director of Litigation at the American Immigration Council:

“Thousands of people have suffered the horrible consequences of the Migrant Protection Protocols. The Supreme Court has now upheld the Texas court’s decision and, instead of keeping MPP a stain in the history books, it will continue to be a present-day disaster.

“Forcing vulnerable families and children to wait in provisional camps in Mexico puts their lives at risk, while also making it nearly impossible for them to access the asylum process. The Biden administration can and must work to terminate the policy again immediately. Rather than turning away people fleeing harm, we should ensure people have a fair day in court.”

”Dred Scottification” at its worst.

Better Judges for a Better America!

DPF!

PWS

08-25-21

⚖️JUSTICE ALITO GRANTS BRIEF STAY TO ALLOW FULL COURT TO VOTE ON MPP REINSTATEMENT!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-faces-deadline-reinstate-remain-mexico-border-program-2021-08-20/

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) – A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would require Democratic President Joe Biden to reinstate a contentious immigration policy implemented by his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump.

The brief order by conservative Justice Samuel Alito puts the litigation on hold while the high court considers how to handle the Biden administration’s request seeking to impose a longer-term block on the judge’s ruling that would require the government to revive the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.

. . . .

******************
Read the complete report at the link.

Doesn’t mean the Court will grant the Gov’s application for stay pending appeal. It’s just that Justice Alito sees enough of an issue that he wants his colleague to have a chance to weigh in.

DPF

PWS

08-21-21

☠️⚰️👎🏽5TH SIDES WITH WHITE NATIONALISTS ON MPP — Declares “Open Season” On Asylum Seekers Of Color, Biden Administration!

Here’s the decision denying the Administration’s request for stay in Texas v. Biden:

5th MPP 21-10806-CV0

*********************

Here are my prior posts on the District Court’s “off the wall” decision now basically endorsed by the Fifth Circuit: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/14/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%b0%ef%b8%8falternate-universe-where-human-rights-human-dignity-due-process-dont-matter-trumpist-usdj-shafts-asylum-seekers-of-color-by-reinstating/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/16/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%b0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a4%aeoutrage-grows-in-human-rights-community-over-trumpist-right-wing-extremist-judges-assault-on-truth-huma/

Although this was only a stay application, the tone of the decision left little doubt about the court’s Trumpist ideology and intention to block rational humanitarian human rights initiatives by the Administration. Not surprisingly, the 3-judge panel was all GOP appointees — two Trump, one Bush II

I wouldn’t expect any help from the Supremes. So, we’ll see whether right wing Federal Judges and GOP AGs can conduct a war on human rights and communities of color by taking over the immigration enforcement apparatus and re-instating Trump’s racist policies.

The Administration is not entirely blameless here. The extreme problems with MPP, including how it caused needless deaths, torture, kidnapping, extortion, rape, and other grotesque mistreatment for those returned, were well-documented going into the 2020 election. Indeed, Biden and Harris campaigned on a promise to reverse them!

Yet, not having a viable plan for restoring the legal asylum system and dealing humanely with new border arrivals “ready for prime time” by inauguration, and still not really having one, is problematic. Although some have “touted” the just-released asylum NPR as the “solution,” that system is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “ready for prime time” either, given the disastrous operational, personnel, “cultural, and “quality control” issues at both the Asylum Offices and EOIR, which could and should have been addressed before now and which could actually become worse if the NPR goes into effect without major internal and leadership changes at these dysfunctional agencies.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/%f0%9f%97%bdcourtsides-instant-analysis-bidens-proposed-asylum-regs-advocates-beware-%e2%9a%a0%ef%b8%8f%e2%98%b9%ef%b8%8f-despite-a-potentially-workable-framework-adminis/

Moreover, it appears that DOJ Attorneys did a substandard job of documenting the many problems, adverse effects, and operational issues with MPP and the injustices and abuses it inflicted upon legal asylum seekers.

As opposed to the rather contrived interests of the states in furthering oppression, endorsed by the Fifth Circuit, the human interests of those seeking asylum under what was supposed to be a fair and functional legal system have fallen off the radar screen. The law still says that any individual arriving at the border, regardless of status, has a right to apply for asylum. That right, as well as the humanity of refugees and the legal and moral obligations of our nation, has been entirely abrogated by the Fifth Circuit.

In a well-functioning democracy, Congress could reform the law, bring the righty judges back under control, and restore Constitutional protections and human and civil rights, But, that would probably take a party different from today’s Dems. And, of course, with the support of the Supremes, the GOP is working furiously to suppress minority votes and insure GOP minority rule stretches long into the future.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️🤮OUTRAGE GROWS IN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY OVER TRUMPIST RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST JUDGE’S ASSAULT ON TRUTH, HUMANITY, & THE RULE OF LAW —“Jesus said, ‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision is contrary to man’s law and God’s law and must be overturned.”

Anna Marie Gallagher, Esquire
Executive Director
CLINIC
PHOTO: CLINIC website

Here’s a statement from CLINIC condemning this Judge’s decision to reinstate the misnamed “Migrant Protection Protocols,” better known as “Remain in Mexico,” or more accurately as “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico:”

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Press Release

Aug. 14, 2021

Lynn Tramonte

Communications Consultant

ltramonte@cliniclegal.org | 202-255-0551

A Statement From the ED: CLINIC Condemns Federal Ruling to Resume Migrant Protection Protocols

SILVER SPRING, Maryland — The following is a statement from CLINIC Executive Director Anna Gallagher:

“CLINIC staff and volunteers have accompanied and provided legal counsel to thousands of men, women and children who sought safety at our doors, only to be stranded in Mexico in inhumane conditions through MPP. They desperately waited for protection and admission to one of the richest countries in the world, in increasing danger, by design of the U.S. government.

MPP is a national shame.

Jesus said, ‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision is contrary to man’s law and God’s law and must be overturned. We now call on President Biden to act on his faith and once again, end this policy that is so contrary to our values and who we aspire to be.”

CLINIC advocates for humane and just immigration policy. Its network of nonprofit immigration programs — 400 organizations in 48 states and the District of Columbia — is the largest in the nation.

Donate to CLINIC

Add CLINIC to your AmazonSmile account:

Copyright © 2021 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., All rights reserved.

unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

***************************

In case you miss the irony, think of this: At the very moment we are pleading with the international community to help extricate us from the humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, we are illegally and arbitrarily turning away legal asylum applicants at our border, many of them women and children with claims just as compelling as those from Afghani women and girls, and returning them to dangerous areas with NO PROCESS AT ALL!

And, Judge K would like to support his GOP White Nationalist buddies in Texas and Missouri by unlawfully reimplementing “Remain in Mexico” — a much-studied, vigorously and rightfully criticized program deemed a practical, human rights, legal, and humanitarian disaster by every credible human rights organization.

CLINIC is right: “Shame!”

The above statement is, of course, not the only cogent criticism I have received at Courtside about this decision. It just happens to be the one that appeared first in my Courtside inbox, courtesy of my good friend and NDPA stalwart Anna Marie Gallagher, Executive Director of CLINIC!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-21

🗽OVER 100 CIVIL & HUMAN RIGHTS NGOS PROTEST BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S FAILURE TO RESTORE RULE OF LAW FOR REFUGEES @ BORDER! — Continued Use Of Title 42 To Suspend Asylum Blasted By Experts: “The administration’s recent actions highlighted above are in direct contravention of the goal to repair the broken immigration system you inherited.”

Biden Border Message — “Border Message”
By Steve Sack
Reproduced under license

Here is the letter:

Joint-Letter-to-President-Biden-on-Expulsion-Flights-to-Southern-Mexico-and-Forthcoming-Changes-to-Asylum-Processing_8132021

***********************

Confirms and amplifies they absurdity and wrongness of US District Judge Kacsmaryk’s recent decision to “restore” the unlawful, cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary MPP (“Let ‘Em Die In Mexico”) https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/14/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%b0%ef%b8%8falternate-universe-where-human-rights-human-dignity-due-process-dont-matter-trumpist-usdj-shafts-asylum-seekers-of-color-by-reinstating/;
As the human rights situations in Afghanistan, Haiti, and the Northern Triangle continue to unravel, the lack of a coherent, operational, legally sound, properly generous refugee and asylum program will continue to haunt the Administration;
In particular, the disgraceful failure to establish a strong, consistent, humane, and protection-oriented interpretation of gender-based asylum to protect women, who are disproportionately targeted for persecution, torture, and other violence, will cost lives of the most vulnerable and be a lasting stain on our nation. (I just listened to Peter Baker, NBC WH Correspondent, on Meet the Press, characterize Afghanistan under the Taliban as a “nation of spouse beaters!”)

The need to fix our our refugee and asylum systems immediately was obvious on January 20, 2021. Why, after 7 months it still is nowhere close to being accomplished is less obvious!

The turmoil in Afghanistan and Haiti and the ongoing human rights disasters in Latin America, all reasonably predictable, are going to increase the human and political problems flowing from a failure to take human rights seriously and to bring the practical human rights experts necessary to solve these issues constructively into the Government power structure! In the end, human rights are everyone’s rights! We ignore that at our peril!

Ironically, while protecting women from persecution and improving their lives was used as a justification by Administrations of both parties for our continuing military presence in Afghanistan, now, as the “end game” plays out in real time, it appears to have been largely reduced to a “talking point” (or a “news feature”) without any discernible plan for protecting or saving Afghan female refugees. Sadly politicos and officials from both parties seem more interested in using women’s lives as “cover” for two decades of ultimately futile presence there than with actually saving any lives now. Indeed, if we treat Afghan women refugees with the inhumane indifference we have continued to heap on female refugees seeking legal asylum at our Southern Border, their outlook is beyond grim.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-21

☠️⚰️ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY, & DUE PROCESS DON’T MATTER —Trumpist USDJ Shafts Asylum Seekers Of Color By Reinstating “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” (a/k/a MPP) Directed Against Asylum Seekers Of Color!

Here’s the decision from U.S. District Judge MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK in Texas v. Biden:

remain in Mexico decision

**********************

Judge Kacsmaryk was appointed to the bench by Trump & McConnell in 2019. He is a former Federal prosecutor, deputy general counsel of a right wing religious group, and member of the Federalist Society. His nomination was (obviously unsuccessfully) opposed by more than 200 prominent civil rights, religious tolerance, and human rights groups.

Here’s an excerpt from their letter in opposition addressed to the Senate:

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, I write in strong opposition to the confirmation of Matthew Kacsmaryk to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas.

Nominees to the federal courts must be committed to respecting the law, Constitution, and core American values of justice, fairness, and inclusivity. Mr. Kacsmaryk does not meet this standard. He is an anti-LGBT activist and culture warrior who does not respect the equal dignity of all people. His record reveals a hostility to LGBT equality and to women’s health, and he would not be able to rule fairly and impartially in cases involving those issues.

https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-confirmation-matthew-kacsmaryk-u-s-district-court-northern-district-texas/

Interestingly, the letter was signed by none other than Vanita S. Gupta, then President & CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and currently the Associate Attorney General of the U.S.

Gupta and her colleagues had Judge K “pegged” as an unqualified righty bigot then! But, with the lineup currently in place at the 5th and the Supremes, it remains to be seen whether there is any effective short-term remedy for his grotesque abuses of power and human rights.

Judicial appointments are important! Maybe it’s time for Gupta and others at DOJ to treat Immigration Judge and BIA appointments as such!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Better Federal Judges for a better America!

PWS

03-14-21

Here’s a copy of the full decision:

Here’s the syllabus (NOT part of the decision):

Key quotes from Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From WashPost:

Opinion by Ruth Marcus

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a link to the decision:

Here’s the Syllabus by Court staff:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

MarIa Sacchetti reports for WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Levin Report: Dumbass Texas Governor Claims No-Exceptions Abortion Law Is Fine Because He’s Going to “Eliminate” Rape

Related posts:

Here’s the video of Geoffrey (approx. 40 minutes):

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Better Judges for better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Robert Barnes @ WashPost

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Here’s the decision denying the Administration’s request for stay in Texas v. Biden:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

CLINIC is right: “Shame!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here is the letter:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the decision from U.S. District Judge MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK in Texas v. Biden:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Better Federal Judges for a better America!

Related posts: