In what one immigration campaigner blasted as “a radical, unprecedented decision,” the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from resuming a policy limiting migrant deportations.
In a 5-4 vote the court rejected an emergency appeal from the administration and upheld an order from a Texas judge compelling the government to deport immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, tweeted: “At stake in this case is a fundamental question; can a president choose who to target for deportation? For generations, the answer was yes. The Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed this point. But now that discretion is at risk of being stripped away.”
Shortly after taking office, Biden, disavowing former President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, issued guidance prioritizing the deportation of people deemed to pose the biggest risk to public safety.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in saying they would have granted the administration’s request. It was Jackson’s first public vote since joining the court.
The high court said it would hear oral arguments in the case, United States v. Texas, in December.
Absolutely nonsensical. Every presidential administration in history has had immigration enforcement priorities. When Congress created DHS in 2003 it legally mandated that the DHS secretary set such priorities. Now a 5-4 SCOTUS has let a single judge in Texas overrule Mayorkas. https://t.co/fjndL5dyN9
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) July 21, 2022
Thursday’s decision was a victory for Republican leaders in Texas and Louisiana who have sued the Biden administration over its guidance. Immigration campaigners, however, denounced the high court’s vote.
“SCOTUS has basically just allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas the power to tell a president what immigration priorities it can and can’t enforce,” tweeted the advocacy group El Otro Lado. “Crazy.”
Reichlin-Melnick noted that “the Supreme Court repeatedly granted the Trump administration emergency relief in situations that were far less extreme than this order.”
The anti- immigrant judicial pipeline is gushing. #SCOTUS predictably refuses to lift injunction on Biden’s common sense #immigration enforcement priorities. Beware grammas & grandpas. ICE agents are gearing up to raid a home near you. https://t.co/pruI3GsuMK
— David Leopold (@DavidLeopold) July 21, 2022
He continued:
This is a radical decision that makes clear that the Supreme Court is picking favorites, and it’s not the Biden [Justice Department]. This means that for at least eight to 10 months, the secretary of homeland security has been effectively barred from instructing [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and [Customs and Border Protection] agents how to carry out their duties, unless he can convince a single judge in Texas to okay his orders.
“This case was the perfect example of a situation where emergency relief should have been granted; a radical, unprecedented decision granting nationwide relief to restrict a core function of a cabinet officer, and in direct conflict with another appeals court,” Reichlin-Melnick added. “Yet SCOTUS said OK.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.