WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court is requiring President Joe Biden's administration to reinstate a controversial immigration policy that forces migrants to wait in Mexico while U.S. officials process their asylum claims.
Biden asked the nation's highest court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans ruled his administration improperly halted the Trump-era immigration policy shortly after his inauguration. Republican attorneys general in Texas and Missouri sued in April to reinstate the program.
A conservative majority of the high court said that the Biden administration failed to demonstrate that the decision to end the program was not arbitrary and capricious. The court's three liberal associate justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, would have allowed the administration to continue its suspension of the program.
The appeals court required the administration to restart the "remain in Mexico" policy, which Biden's lawyers said would create a "diplomatic and humanitarian crisis." The administration asked the Supreme Court to block the lower court's order temporarily while the underlying legal fight continues over how it halted the program.
The Supreme Court late Friday allowed the policy to remain suspended through Tuesday while the justices considered arguments in the case.
Block:Supreme Court halts re-start of Trump era 'remain in Mexico' policy
Appeal:Biden appeals federal judge's 'Remain in Mexico' policy reinstatement ruling
The Trump administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols program in January 2019 as part of its effort to limit immigration – both legal and illegal -- at the U.S.-Mexico border and end what critics call "catch and release" policies. By the end of 2020, the Trump administration had enrolled 68,000 people in the program, according to court records.
The program permitted the U.S. to send migrants, including those from Central America, to Mexico while they waited for an immigration judge to review their case. A federal district court in Texas found that the policy acted as a deterrent, leading to a significant reduction in enforcement encounters along the nation's southern border.
But others question whether that reduction was driven by the policy or other factors. And critics say the program left migrants in dangerous conditions while they waited for the U.S. immigration system to catch up to surges in asylum applications.
A group of immigrant advocates and former immigration judges told the high court this week that the policy "was a humanitarian catastrophe" that left asylum seekers "murdered, raped, kidnapped, extorted, and compelled to live in squalid conditions where they faced significant procedural barriers to meaningfully presenting their protection claims."
The state attorneys general told the court that the Biden administration's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets standards for how federal agencies craft regulations and engage in decisionmaking. Similar procedural claims were frequently raised against the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court sided with the government against immigrants in several cases in its most recent term. A unanimous court curbed a 30-year-old program for foreign nationals whose countries are ravaged by war or natural disaster, ruling in July its temporary protection from deportation doesn't guarantee a more permanent stay.
A 5-3 majority ruled in March against an immigrant who had lived in the country illegally for 25 years and who asserted he wrongfully faced deportation for using a false Social Security card. The court found the immigrant did not meet the burden required to show he should have been allowed to present his case to avoid deportation.
Source link
