In a 5-4 opinion drafted by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of Republican-led states seeking to force officials to retain politics, ruling that its 1996 decision did not violate its law. for the detention of immigrants and that a second termination note should have been considered by lower courts. Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh participated in the High Court on behalf of the Biden government in the case known as Biden v. Texas. Judges Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett presented separate opposing views, parts of which were added by Judges Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. In his view, Roberts overturned a decision by the 5th Regional Court of Appeals that forced border officials to revive the Rules of Stay in Mexico, officially known as the Immigrant Protection Protocols, in December. Roberts said the 1996 law authorizing the program did not require officials to return immigrants to Mexico, but simply gave them the option to do so, noting the use of the word “may” in the statute. If Congress wanted the law to require asylum seekers to return to Mexico, Roberts wrote, “he would not have conveyed this intention through an implicit conclusion in conflict with the clear, explicit term ‘may’.” Roberts also noted that a court ruling imposing the use of the Stay in Mexico policy interfered with the president’s broad powers to conduct foreign policy, as the Mexican government must accept the return of immigrants to its territory. In his disagreement, Alito said he agreed with the majority of the court that the lower courts did not have the power to order the Biden government to reinstate Remain in Mexico, but listed several disagreements with Roberts’ decision. Alito did not dispute that Congress has never funded enough detention beds to hold all immigrants crossing the US border illegally, but said officials do not have the authority to release large numbers of non-returning immigrants to Mexico. Instead of implementing Remain in Mexico, Alito argued, the Biden government decided “simply to release into the country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be deported if they appear in the process of being deported.” “This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court is looking the other way,” Alito wrote. In August 2021, a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit filed by Republican officials in Texas and Missouri ordered the Biden government to revive the Remain in Mexico rules, finding that a note issued by Homeland Security’s Alejandro policy was legally inadequate. U.S. Judge Matthew Katsmarik, appointed by Trump, called on the administration to implement the “good faith” stay protocols in Mexico until it terminates them properly and until the government creates enough detention facilities to detain all immigrants subject to the law. 1996 detention. In response, Mayorkas issued a more comprehensive note in October to try to end MPP policy for a second time. But Kacsmaryk’s decision was later upheld by the 5th Circuit, which refused to consider Mayorkas’ second termination note. Legal failures forced the Biden government to resurrect Remain in Mexico in December, although it revised the program, requiring officials to ask immigrants if they feared persecution in Mexico before sending them there, offering registered and coronary vaccines. groups from politics, such as asylum seekers with serious medical conditions, the elderly and members of the LGBT community. Since December, the Biden government has implemented Remain in Mexico on a limited scale, enrolling 7,259 immigrants in the program since the end of May, according to government figures. During the same period, U.S. officials along the southern border processed migrants more than 1 million times, according to DHS data. The Supreme Court ruling on Thursday sent the case back to lower courts to decide whether Mallorca’s second attempt to end the policy followed administrative rules. DHS representatives did not respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration used the MPP policy to repatriate 70,000 immigrants to Mexico, many of whom lived in miserable camps near the U.S. border. Human rights activists have documented hundreds of reported attacks on migrants forced to wait in Mexico, including areas where the US government warns Americans not to visit due to widespread crime and kidnappings. The Trump administration said the MPP prevented immigrants seeking better financial opportunities from using the asylum system to stay and work in the US, but the Biden administration argued that the policy was ineffective and imposed “unjustified human costs” on applicants. asylum, putting them at risk of victimization in Mexico. Republican lawmakers attributed the unprecedented levels of immigrant arrests recorded last year to the Biden administration’s decision to end stay in Mexico and other Trump-era border restrictions. However, Biden government officials said record arrivals at the border were part of a regional displacement crisis triggered by economic instability linked to pandemics, violence, corruption and natural disasters in Latin America. In May, U.S. border patrol agents along the border with Mexico recorded 222,000 immigrant arrests, a monthly high of all time. Customs and Border Protection, its parent service, has processed migrants more than 1.5 million times in fiscal year 2022, which will end in late September. While using the MPP policy sparingly since its revival, the Biden administration relied on another Trump measure known as Title 42 to expel hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the U.S.-Mexico border without allowing them to seek asylum. As of March 2020, the United States has relied on Title 42, a World War II-era public health authority, to deport more than 2 million immigrants to Mexico or their countries of origin, according to Homeland Security statistics. The Biden government tried to end Title 42 in May, citing improving pandemic conditions, but Republican-led states persuaded a Louisiana federal judge to urge officials to continue deporting. The judge, who was also appointed by Trump, said the policy had ended improperly. More Camilo Montoya-Galvez Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter for CBS News. Based in Washington, DC, it covers immigration policy and policy.
