TThe Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Biden administration has the power to end the Trump-era immigration policy known as. ..Joe Biden and his administration have won the ability to determine their own immigration strategies. In a decisionof
5-4 , theSupreme Courtnarrowly acknowledged the Biden administration's authority to oversee the border procedure between the United States and Mexico, officially. Ends "Stay in Mexico" called the Immigration Protection Protocol (MPP). This is a Trump-era policy to return immigrants who claimed asylum to Mexico while the proceedings were being ruled.
Judge John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with the addition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and three liberals in court. Judge Amy Coney Barrett objected, with some other conservatives in the court.
In the majority opinion, Roberts said the administration's actions to end the policy did not violate the law, as the Red States disputed the move, and Biden went to the program. He said it could reveal ways to unregister immigrants. However, Roberts pointed out that the administration's actions could be challenged for other reasons, such as specifically pointing out part of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and further proceedings on another legal issue. I sent the judgment back to the lower court.
This decision is made just four days after the smuggling of people in San Antonio, Texas, where53 migrants were allegedly killed.Some immigration experts and supporters have blamed the strict policies of the United States. -Mexico border like MPP to encourage dangerous unauthorized border crossing organized by people smugglers. "The Supreme Court's ruling paves the way for the Biden administration to adopt a more orderly immigration process at the border," says David Beer, deputy director of immigration policy at the Cato Institute of Libertarians. "" Staying in Mexico "was a failure. It treated asylum seekers so inhumanely that they repeatedly and illegally crossed the border, rather than "staying in Mexico."
The Biden administration has been trying to end the MPP since June 2021, but conservative states have challenged the move and the government has no authority to end the program. Insisted. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January in favor of the state, and the Department of Homeland Security decided whether to detain asylum seekers in the United States or put them on standby in Mexico. That is, this policy must be maintained until Congress allocates billions of dollars. A dollar to expand the detention capacity of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that District 5 was wrong, and Roberts said in his opinion that the interpretation of Immigration Law in Circuit 5 was "significant to the executive branch's ability to carry out diplomatic relations with Mexico. It imposes a burden. [Immigration Law] imposes. "
" The larger policy story behind this case detains non-citizens trying to enter the United States while waiting for immigration proceedings. It's decades of powerlessness in the political sector to provide DHS with ample facilities, "Kavanaugh said in his favor. "But this court has the authority to deal only with the legal issues that precede us. It has no authority to end the legislative impasse or resolve the underlying policy issues."
In her dissenting opinion, Barrett agreed with the majority's analysis of legal issues, but wrote that he "did not agree with the decision to reach them." She wrote that Barrett would have first remanded the case to a lower court.
Immigrant advocates celebrate the Supreme Court's ruling and tell the Biden administration that people currently in MPP, currently waiting in Mexico, will enter the United States to carry out the remaining asylum cases. I asked him to start allowing things immediately.
"We commend the court's decision," said Priscilla Alter, who oversees the lawyer for the Good Government Project Corazon attorney in Brownsville, Texas. "Currently, thousands of people are enrolled in this program along the border. They live in dilapidated shelters and are in danger without consulting a lawyer. In light of this decision. , We now urge the Biden administration to immediately suspend all pending hearings and release them on parole so that registered people can safely seek asylum. "
Read more: How the United States fights for "staying in Mexico" Immigration policy has reached "peak turmoil"
The conservative lawyer, who filed a lawsuit to prevent the Biden administration from terminating the MPP, expressed disappointment. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in astatement, "I believe today's decision by the US Supreme Court is unfortunate and false." But that's not the end. I will continue to move forward and focus on securing borders and keeping our community safe in dozens of other immigration proceedings in court.
DHS did not immediately respond to TIME's request for comment.
Immigrant advocates have long criticized the MPP, created in December 2018 and implemented by the Trump administration in January 2019. According to theTransactionalRecords Access Clearinghouse(TRAC), a research institute at Syracuse University, more than 71,000 people have been enrolled in the MPP. Many resource-poor people stay in dangerous Mexican border cities like Matamoros across the border in Brownsville, Texas, resulting in the formation of temporary tent camps along the border and instability. The situation protected hundreds of immigrants. Violence against immigrantsis common.
The Biden administration suspended new registrations with the MPP in January 2021 and while U.S. immigration judges were reviewing asylum applications, those already enrolled in the program went to the United States. I started to allow entry. By May 2021, only about 10,300 of the more than 71,000 MPP-registered immigrants had been accepted into the United States, according to TRAC analysis. In June, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo to officially end the program.
Later, a proceeding filed by Texas and Missouri Attorney Generals Paxton and Eric Schmidt argued that Mallorcus did not follow the APA letter when it terminated the MPP. MPP resumed as the lower court stood by the Attorney General. In the six months since then, more than 5,000 new people have been enrolled in the program, according to TRAC. Of these cases, only 1,109 were completed in court, of which only 27 were granted asylum.
Read more:Why judges are basically currently in charge of US immigration policy
"The Supreme Court's decision allowing the Byden administration to terminate MPP does not solve all of the complex issues along the US-Mexico border," said Austin, an assistant professor and researcher at TRAC. Kocher says. "But it removes a major barrier to the legitimate asylum process."
Immigrant advocates support the Supreme Court's ruling, but another Trump era known as Title 42. Policy remains a major barrier to US asylum.
On April 1, the Biden administrationis a public health authority initiated by the federal government to immediately expel anyone attempting unauthorized intrusion into the United States by. Announced plans to lift 42. To prevent the spread of COVID-19. Unlike MPPs, immigrants can be expelled all at once under Title 42 without being entitled to apply for asylum. Some states argued that terminating the program would cause confusion, and in late May federal judges held title 42 until the proceedings, as the court made administrative efforts to terminate the MPP. I ordered the administration to continue the enforcement. The proceedings have now passed the court system. In short, the legal struggle over the authority of the executive branch to oversee immigration policy could be brought back to the Supreme Court fairly quickly.
Jasmine Aguilera (jasmine.aguilera@time.com) and Madeleine Carlisle (madeleine.carlisle@time.com
) Please contact.