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
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.”
Not everyone can pay for the news. But if you can, we need your support.
Truthout is widely read among people with lower incomes and among young people who are mired in debt. Our site is read at public libraries, among people without internet access of their own. People print out our articles and send them to family members in prison — we receive letters from behind bars regularly thanking us for our coverage. Our stories are emailed and shared around communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.
We’re committed to keeping all Truthout articles free and available to the public. But in order to do that, we need those who can afford to contribute to our work to do so — especially now, because we only have hours left to raise over $9,000 in critical funds.
We’ll never require you to give, but we can ask you from the bottom of our hearts: Will you donate what you can, so we can continue providing journalism in the service of justice and truth?