The Supreme Court Shares Biden S Efforts To End The Stay In Mexico Program.

Supreme Judge John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion of the majority, along with Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the three Liberal members of the court. Judge Amy Coney Barrett agreed with much of the Chief Justice’s analysis. The disputed program, commonly known as Staying in Mexico and formally known as Immigration Protection Protocols, applies to people who left a third country and traveled through Mexico to reach the US border. Following the implementation of the policy in early 2019, tens of thousands of people waited in unhealthy tent camps for immigration hearings. There have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnapping and torture. Immediately after taking office, President Biden sought to end the program. Texas and Missouri have filed a lawsuit and lower courts have reinstated it, ruling that federal immigration laws require expatriate returnees who cannot be detained while their cases are being tried. Since the Biden administration resumed the program in December, far fewer immigrants have registered than under the Trump administration. This is partly because the United States has agreed to take additional steps to meet certain requirements from Mexico, including sending migrants back under the program only if there is sufficient shelter. By the end of May, the Biden government had enrolled more than 7,200 immigrants in the program since December 2021. Most of those registered in recent months are from Nicaragua and are men. From January 2019, when the Trump administration launched the program, to the end of 2020, nearly 70,000 immigrants were sent back to Mexico to await their court hearings, according to the U.S. Immigration Council. The case of Biden v. Texas, No. 21-954, was unusually complex, involving three pieces of legislation that showed different directions. One provision stated that the federal government would generally “hold” immigrants while they wait for immigration proceedings to be considered. But Congress never had enough money to keep the number of people affected. In 2021, for example, the government processed about 670,000 immigrants who arrived along the Mexican border, but had the capacity to hold about 34,000. The second provision stated that the government “may return” migrants arriving by land in the country of origin. The third provision allowed the government to release immigrants to the United States while they awaited their hearings “on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.” Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for North Texas, Amarillo, ruled last year that immigration laws required the return of non-nationals seeking asylum in Mexico when the federal government did not have the resources to do so. keep them. The Biden government immediately asked the Supreme Court to intervene, but refused to block Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision to restart the program. The three most liberal judges disagreed. The brief, unsigned court order at the time said the government appeared to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in abolishing the program, citing a 2020 ruling that refused to allow the Trump administration to immediately cancel an Obama-era program to protect young immigrants. as Dreamers. The Biden government then took steps to restart the program, although it issued a new decision to end it. Administration officials, responding to criticism that they had acted hastily, published a 38-page memorandum setting out their reasoning. They concluded that the cost of the program outweighed its benefits. Among those costs, the note said, were dangerous conditions in Mexico, immigrants finding it difficult to talk to lawyers across borders, and ways in which the program undermined government foreign policy goals and initiatives. domestic policy. A team of three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans has rejected a plan by the administration to end the program. “The government says it has unverizable and unilateral discretion to create and eliminate entire elements of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless people, tax dollars and sovereign states,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote of the commission. “The government also says it has an unverifiable and unilateral discretion to ignore the institutional limits imposed by Congress.” “And the government says it can do all this by typing a new ‘note’ and posting it on the internet,” he added. “If the government was right, it would replace the rule of law with the rule of speech. “We believe the government is wrong.” Eileen Sullivan contributed to the petition.