NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments as to whether or not the Biden administration could properly remove the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPPs), known as the “Stay in Mexico” policy, which allowed the United States to send migrants back across the border. to await the immigration hearings.
The crux of the matter is whether the federal government can use discretion in implementing the program or if, as Texas and Missouri argue in their lawsuit, the policy is needed to comply with federal law, which says migrants cannot be allowed into The United States because the country does not have the resources to keep everyone.
SUPREME COURT REJECTS REMOVAL OF BLOCKING RACE-BASED RECEPTION POLICY IN HIGHEST RATING HIGH SCHOOL
Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar challenged the idea that staying in Mexican politics is necessary to follow the law.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmidt talks to reporters with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after the US Supreme Court heard arguments in their case regarding Title 42 on April 26, 2022 in Washington, DC (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
“According to this reading, every presidential administration in a continuous line for the last quarter of a century is in clear violation of [Immigration and Nationality Act]She said, adding that “if Congress wanted to impose these results, it would speak clearly.”
Many of the conversations during the disputes were about legal language. Prelogar cited 8 USC 1225 (b) (2) (c), which states that the Attorney General “may return” aliens from a neighboring territory back to that territory while awaiting a hearing, which Prelogar claims is “not a mandate.”
Immigration activists demonstrated before the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, while the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Biden v. Texas case. (Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Judge Clarence Thomas was quick to point out an earlier part of the statute, 8 USC 1225 (b) (2) (a), which states that if an immigration officer deems that a migrant “has no clear and undoubted right to be admitted” in USA, the migrant “will be detained”.
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HAVE APPEAL FROM DEPOSITED IN Texas Prison Sentence Rodney Reed
“I think they see the ‘should’ as a baseline, and the rest are – there is limited judgment on parole or other things,” Thomas said of Texas, Missouri and other states struggling to maintain policy. “They seem to think that discretion is driven by ‘need’.”
Conditional release and “other things” are discussed in 8 USC 1226 (a), which states that in the event that a migrant is arrested and faces possible removal, the government has three options in which it can “detain” or release them on bail or parole.
Immigration activists demonstrated before the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, while the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Biden v. Texas case. (Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Chief Justice John Roberts turned to the idea that the government could not comply with the law.
“If you have a situation where you are stuck because there is no way to obey the law and deal with the problem there, I just wonder why this is our problem?” He asked.
Prelogar acknowledged that this was not a problem for the court, but that the court should do nothing but consider the lower court’s interpretation of the language “may return” to the statute, which led to an order preventing the administration from eliminating the MPP. .
“All the court has to say in this case is that the provision for return to neighboring territory does not have the meaning that justifies the order of the district court in this case,” Prelogar said. Any other issue of legal significance in other sections does not require the attention of the Supreme Court here, she argued.
Judd Stone of the Texas Attorney General’s Office told the court that the only way to meet federal requirements for migrants is to detain them, release them on parole, or return them to their countries of origin.
Repeating what Prelogar had said earlier, Judge Thomas asked Stone if “any administration has ever observed 1225 according to your reading.”
“I guess not,” Stone said. When Thomas asked if it was “strange” for Congress to pass a law that the government could not follow, Stone said no and that there was a mandatory detention requirement “for more than a century.”
If Congress did not provide the administration with the resources to comply fully, the executive had to “do the best it could.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION
The case is being heard at a time when the Biden administration is in the process of reversing another Trump-era immigration policy, the Title 42 Public Health Order, which allows the rapid removal of migrants arriving from countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. .
President Biden said he canceled Title 42 on May 23, leading to a lawsuit from a number of states. On Monday, a federal judge issued an interim injunction blocking the administration from revoking the order.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add Comment