Posted on 07/22/2022 8:41:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It isn’t a huge ruling by the Supreme Court but it is a defeat for the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement policy, at least a temporary defeat. The interesting points of the ruling include the fact that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberal justices. It is also the first time the newest justice’s name appears on an order released by the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court denied the Biden administration’s stay request to reinstate an immigration enforcement policy that allows DHS to focus its resources on certain groups of illegal immigrants for deportation over others. At the time that the new policy was implemented by DHS Secretary Mayorkas, Texas and Louisiana filed lawsuits challenging the policy, along with others, and a lower court issued a legal victory for the challengers. The Biden administration asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to block the district court’s judgment but was denied its request so the Biden administration took it to the Supreme Court. The court treated its court filing as a formal petition for appeal and the justices granted it. The case is scheduled to be heard the first week in December, in the court’s next term.
At issue is DHS guidance from last September that directed immigration officers to prioritize certain groups of undocumented immigrants for deportation over others, with a focus on those who pose a threat to public safety or national security. The policy also directed officers to make a more comprehensive assessment of noncitizens before proceeding with an arrest or removal.
Mayorkas wants to use what he calls DHS’s limited resources to arrest or deport illegal aliens who are deemed the most dangerous to society. It’s a piecemeal approach to the immigration crisis that is only getting worse because of Biden’s bone-headed policies, or lack of policies. Officials in several Republican-led states are challenging about a dozen nationwide border or immigration-related policies in federal court.
Officials in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and other GOP-controlled states have convinced federal judges, all but one of whom was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to block or set aside seven major immigration policies enacted or supported by Mr. Biden over the past year.
The states’ lawsuits have doomed a proposed 100-day deportation moratorium, suspended two rules aimed at limiting immigration arrests, forced border officials to reinstate the Trump policy of requiring some migrants to await their asylum hearings in Mexico and closed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for so-called “Dreamers” to new applicants.
Republican-controlled states have also secured rulings to require the Biden administration to continue an emergency border order known as Title 42 that allows for the quick expulsion of migrants and to prevent it from continuing an exemption to that policy for unaccompanied migrant children.
The importance of judicial nominations and success in getting a president’s nominees confirmed is highlighted at times like this. Elections have consequences and it is important to remember how crucial it was for conservatives that Mitch McConnell worked so closely with the Trump White House to move judicial nominations through the Senate confirmation process in a timely manner. In this case, it was a Trump-appointed judge that sided with the challengers last month, vacating the DHS policy. The judge ruled that DHS failed to follow federal immigration law.
The liberal justices voted in favor of the Biden administration and DHS’s policy. Interestingly enough, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with them. The vote was 5-4. They would have sided with the Biden administration to temporarily block the lower court order while the case plays out.
As I mentioned, there are other lawsuits challenging Biden’s policies that are pending. For example, challenges to Biden’s decision to stop the construction of the border wall and the administration’s attempt to overhaul and speed up the asylum process along the southern border remain.
Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesperson, said the Biden administration has faced “immense obstruction” from Republican state officials. “We’ve seen it time and again: Republican elected officials attempt to block nearly every step we take to rebuild the immigration system the prior Administration gutted, and then try to blame us for the chaos and confusion their actions cause,” Hasan told CBS News.
But Hasan argued the administration is still “making significant progress securing the border and building a fair, orderly, and humane immigration processing system.”
Does he expect us to think that Democrats don’t judge-shop for their legal challenges against conservative policy? And, please, the claim that DHS is making “significant progress” with anything along the southern border or within the immigration system is just laughable. They think you are stupid.
The Nazi riots in her yard must be starting to get to Barrett. That’s too bad.
The Truth is that we were hoodwinked and that Barrett was a liberal all along. A horrible choice. Calling her a conservative is an absolute joke.
she did her job with the Roe Wade overturn and the CCW case from NY. We are not going to get 100% decisions on our side. Take the win when it happens.
You named one. You will have a hard time finding any more.
She is not a liberal in a billion years. We can call her something else.
And what do you base that upon? That she agreed to put a stay on a Biden policy?
“The Nazi riots in her yard must be starting to get to Barrett. That’s too bad.”
Nah, she’s just a coward.
“she did her job with the Roe Wade overturn and the CCW case from NY. We are not going to get 100% decisions on our side. Take the win when it happens.”
Except she screwed all us Healthcare workers that don’t want the clot shot.
The headlines are all very deceptive. You are left to figure it out from the context. From the article:
“The interesting points of the ruling include the fact that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberal justices.” (That means 4)
So Barret was on the losing side. She wanted Biden to win. So no she did not agree to put a stay on the Biden’s policy. At least that is how I read it.
Barret has been on the liberal side in most all of her rulings.
You better check again.
All these comments yet I don't see one that addresses whatever the question being decided was. The article doesn't either. Just who "wins". The court doesn't set policy. It decides legal questions that come before it. So what was the question? How do you know who was right or who was wrong if you don't even bother to think about it?
Ah. So you don’t understand how USSC stays work, nor their process for accepting a case. Fair enough.
The Supreme Court follows what is called, ‘The Rule of Four’. These things require four Justices to decide to hear a case, and they will issue a “writ of certiorari”.
Initially, a request for certification is submitted to one Justice, based upon which Court of Appeals the case came through (or other jurisdiction). That Justice will determine whether or not to apply a stay, and then see if other Justices want to hear the case. The point of this rule is to not let a coalition of five Justices to dominate the agenda.
After four Justices agree to hear a case, they stop counting - though sometimes this takes a long time and everyone gets in on the discussion as to whether to take the case. If the case is accepted quickly, usually fewer Justices will have weighed in. In the case of Dobbs, the USSC took several months and more than a dozen conferences before deciding to accept the case.
Especially in cases taken quickly, it says nothing at all about the other five, who may oppose, may agree, or may even not have been asked; much less whether the four wanted to hear the case for the same reason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari
“Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesperson” -— They sure seem to like foreigners at the White House.
She was on the right side of the Remain in Mexico policy.
Roberts and Kavanaugh, unfortunately, were not.
And on the right side of the EPA slapdown.
Well that makes a difference in this case. Sadly not one of the articles on this did a good job of explaining what this is. But am I understanding that the court hearing this case is a chance for Biden to win. And that if the case was not heard then Biden would already be the loser via a lower court?
Still makes me wonder what ACB up to. Several times she has saddened me by taking the liberal side.
Barrett has/had a little too much “social worker” in her personality for me to trust her anyhow. So no surprises.
Like i matter to ACB, haha.
This isn’t a surprise.
The SCOTUS is now just a rubber stamp for Deep State.
It decides what Deep State tells it to decide.
Barret doesn’t want to be called the r world
I, for one, welcome our 80 IQ black female overlords.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.