(CNN)The Supreme Court on Monday made it much harder for immigrants to challenge immigration policy in court. did. You must bring it individually, not the entire class.
This is a judgment that may affect future court decisions in so-called "stay in Mexico" cases.
In writing for the majority, Judge Samuel Alito pointed out and summarized the wording of the relevant law: "In general, lower courts order federal authorities to take or refrain from taking it. It is forbidden to enter an injunction. " Actions to enforce, enforce, or otherwise enforce the specified statutory provisions.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote a partial dissenting opinion, with Judge Elena Kagan and Judge Stephen Breyer.
The majority commented that the majority "raises fragmentary dictionary definitions and policy concerns about obvious meanings and contexts."
"I respect and disagree with the court's dazzling analysis, which prevents many vulnerable non-citizens from protecting their rights," she wrote. increase. However, the three judges said they thought the government should win the case, not because of the majority opinion.
In the Gonzales case, the Supreme Court was considering whether the lower court exceeded its authority in granting class-wide relief to challengers in proceedings under relevant immigration law. rice field. The majority said they did so at an event that would have a significant impact on how other immigration policies could be challenged in federal court in the future.
Arito said that the relevant immigration law "does not prevent the court from receiving injunctive relief on behalf of a particular foreigner", but "relief by injunction on behalf of the entire class of foreigners". Is not allowed because it is not allowed. " It is limited to correcting the illegal "application" of relevant laws and regulations to "individual foreigners".
Impact on immigrant advocates
Monday's ruling is a devastating blow Seeing options to swiftly block immigration policies opposed in court Immigrant rights activists are severely restricted.
"The effects of court mistakes should not be ignored," Sotomayor wrote. She pointed out that immigrants face the difficulties they face when navigating the "National Labyrinth Immigration Law" and the "especially difficult hurdles" after detention.
"It is one issue to expect non-citizens facing these obstacles to prevent their dismissal in immigration courts. Sotomayor is a separate secured federal court. It is a completely different thing to impose an additional burden on each of them through the procedure to counter systematic violations of their rights, "Sotomayor wrote. Prohibiting class-wide injunction relief is such a breach, except for a few lucky people who are good enough to provide a competent mortgage counsel or secure an active free agent. It means that it will not be corrected. '
The majority conclusion of the Gonzales case is the so-called "stay in Mexico" case, which may be decided by the Supreme Court later this term. In that case, Texas and other Red States have a controversial Trump-era policy (known as "staying in Mexico") to keep immigrants in Mexico while they wait for immigration proceedings. Disputed the withdrawal of the Byden administration. Inferior Court Order ■ Prevent the Biden administration from overturning policy. The Texas proceedings have not been filed on behalf of any particular class, but the proceedings also do not deal with the dismissal of individual immigrants. Within a few weeks, the Supreme Court may rule against Texas. In a ruling similar to the one in Gonzales on Monday, the lower court was initially authorized to hear the Texas proceedings. place. After the Supreme Court's oral argument in the Remain in Mexico case, the judge sought additional explanation from the parties addressing the procedural question.
Correction: In previous versions of this story, the name of Garland vs. Gonzales, a Supreme Court case, was misspelled.
This story has been updated with additional details.
