NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration could abolish the Trump administration's immigration protocol (commonly known as the "stay in Mexico" policy) and overturn the lower court's ruling. ..
Under that policy, immigrants seeking entry into the United States had to stay in Mexico while waiting for a hearing. The Trump administration has implemented policies to prevent immigrants from being released to the United States. The Biden administration tried to abolish the policy, but it was previously blocked by lower courts.
The question was whether theDepartment of Homeland Security's suspension ofand subsequent termination of the policy violated federal law requiring migrants to be detained. Or, if the immigrants arrived from a neighboring country, whether they would be sent back. ..
The main decree is8U.S.C. Section 1225, some of which are "procedures" unless they are "approved clearly and beyond suspicion". "Must be detained for", some of which state whether they are from adjacent territories, such asMexico, "The Attorney General is a foreigner." Can be returned to its territory, "they are waiting for a hearing.
Supreme Court judges hear discussions on border policy "staying in Mexico"
Must be capable of detaining everyone For example, Texas and Missouri have to file proceedings, and if possible, send them back.
In her oral argument at the Supreme Court, US Secretary of State Elizabeth Prelogger said that policies are needed to comply with federal law. I opposed the idea.
"In this reading, all uninterrupted presidential governments for the past quarter century have openly violated [immigration and nationality law]," she said, resulting in a clear statement. Would have been told.
Despite student anger, George Washington University does not dismiss Clarence Thomas of Justice
Clarence Thomas of Justice Thomas repeated this in an oral debate, and it was "strange" for Congress to pass a law that the government could not comply with.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Thomas also in oral argument Although the government grants parole admitting that it has discretionary power, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals states that underrelevant legislation, this is "on a case-by-case basis" in the judgment of the case. As a general policy that should be done and applicable in all situations.
This is a developing story. Please check again for more information.
