Washington, DC, is the nation’s capital. On Tuesday, attorneys for the Biden administration claimed in court that individual states lack the authority to challenge federal immigration policy.
Both Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has sued the United States government over immigration policies enacted during the Biden administration, arguing that “enforcement guidelines” issued by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security were drafted and put into effect unlawfully.
5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) authorizes a judge to “hold unlawful and set aside” (vacate) a government decision that is “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in conformity with the law,” which is what the states did. Close to thirty other states have also submitted papers supporting the plaintiffs. This is the standard procedure for filing a federal lawsuit against the United States for breaking state law.
The provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), which specifies that law enforcement “shall detain” those guilty of severe felonies, are at issue here. On the other hand, the Biden administration issued a guidance letter saying that arrest warrants for non-citizens should only be issued in cases when the government has reason to believe that the individual poses a threat to public safety.
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas vacated (made void) the regulation to alleviate the states’ burden. After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government, an appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court.
The Biden administration maintains that the states do not have the legal authority to file suit over this issue and that the courts do not have the power to provide the relief that the conditions seek.
While meeting with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, Chief Justice John Roberts made the following remark: “Now we must announce what the law is, not whether or not it can be properly enforced or if there are difficulties.” Since Congress and the executive branch can’t agree on anything, we should not give that kind of power to anybody else. Don’t let them off the hook if you ask me.
Prelogar said that paying attention to the language of Congress’ immigration statute “would be immensely disruptive on the ground” and “would disperse immigration enforcement activities on the ground” after Roberts confirmed that “must” in Section 1226 meant “must” to him.
When Prelogar argued that courts could not annul agency acts based on Section 706 of the A.P.A., all of the government’s justices were taken aback. Nevertheless, hundreds of cases in the past 80 years have been, with support from the Supreme Court in many of them.
To avoid judicial scrutiny, Roberts says this “unnecessarily” usurped presidential power.
The Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurring with Prelogar, told him face-to-face, “the conceptual challenge I’m having with your argument” is that courts cannot entirely toss down administrative regulations and directives. She explained that “Congress has defined under the A.P.A. that agencies have to follow precise methods to produce valid and legally enforceable rules” and that if an agency doesn’t follow those procedures, “what the agency did is void.”
And the government has never raised this particular justification in the whole history of the A.P.A..”
That important federal legislation controlling the power of federal agencies has been “quite drastically reworked,” as Justice Brett Kavanaugh described it.
It baffles me that you would use such a bold claim as the centerpiece of your presentation today, but be assured that I will do my best to disprove it.”
Kavanaugh went on to provide further information.
Despite the Department of Justice’s assertion that state governments lack Article III standing to confront federal entities, Justice Samuel Alito ruled otherwise. You seem to think that states never sustain serious enough harm to warrant compensation for an injury that would be sufficient for Article III purposes if it were suffered by an individual or a private business.” That the rule was “unique” and “disfavored” governments in legal proceedings was what Prelogar claimed he learned from him.
Despite her earlier statement that “it’s hard to think of” federal policies that states could not challenge in federal court if they could, as the states did here, come up with a dollar amount of damages the states claim resulted from a national policy, Justice Elena Kagan expressed skepticism that Texas and Louisiana possessed the requisite standing to bring this matter before the court.
Judd Stone, the attorney general of Texas, responded by citing incidents in which illegal immigrants suffered harm after being released and then re-arrested for human trafficking.
It’s not absurd to think that”
Almost instantaneously, the words appeared on her lips. Stone was the one who harped on the fact that something had happened.
Kavanaugh shared Stone’s worries about the court’s decision and its potential repercussions if the justices sided with the states and ordered federal agencies to carry out actions they lacked the authority to do.
As Stone put it, “there is an on-record judgment of bad faith,” so he has no reason to doubt that the Biden administration is trying to do the right thing. He contended that if a court found that a government agency was wilfully ignoring the law, the court could nullify a policy that violates the law.
Though related to immigration, this case’s significance is much broader. By the end of June, a resolution had to have been reached.
The case of United States of America v. Texas has been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.