247 Local Media247 Local Media

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos

    December 8, 2022

    Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction

    October 31, 2022

    When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish

    September 27, 2022
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    • Home
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Subscribe
    • Home
    • Automotive
    • Business
    • CBD
    • Crypto
    • Education
    • Entertainment
    • Fashion
    • Finance
    • Health
    • Home Improvement
    • Law \ Legal
    • News
    • Shopping
    • Sports
    • Technology
    • Travel
    • Contact US
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Home»Law \ Legal»Divided court allows Biden to end Trump’s “remain in Mexico” asylum policy
    Law \ Legal

    Divided court allows Biden to end Trump’s “remain in Mexico” asylum policy

    By June 30, 2022No Comments4 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Divided court allows Biden to end Trump’s “remain in Mexico” asylum policy
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
    Divided court allows Biden to end Trump’s “remain in Mexico” asylum policy


    OPINION ANALYSIS


    By Amy Howe

    on Jun 30, 2022
    at 1:13 pm

    The Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Biden administration a major victory, giving it the green light to end one of the Trump administration’s signature immigration programs: the controversial “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court.

    The justices divided 5-4, with the court’s three liberal justices and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.

    The ruling was the latest chapter in the tug-of-war over the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocol, since the Trump administration announced it in 2018. The justices allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing the policy after a federal district judge blocked it, and a few months later the justices agreed to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holding that the policy likely violated both federal immigration and international law. The justices dismissed that case last year, however, after the Biden administration attempted to end the policy.

    Texas and Missouri challenged the Biden administration’s efforts to terminate the policy. After a federal district judge in Texas ordered the federal government to reinstate the policy, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court rejected requests from the Biden administration to temporarily put the district judge’s ruling on hold, prompting the government to revive the policy while litigation continued.

    The court on Thursday agreed with the Biden administration that ending MPP would not violate federal law. The statute at the center of the case, Section 1225(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides that the federal government “may” return an asylum seeker who arrives at the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada to that country to await a hearing. The use of the word “may,” Roberts explained, indicates that the government has the discretion to return asylum seekers, but it is not required to do so. And that discretionary authority is not changed, Roberts continued, by another provision of federal law that makes detention mandatory. If Congress had wanted to require the government to return asylum seekers to Mexico or Canada if it did not detain them, Roberts reasoned, it would have said so, rather than making return discretionary. And indeed, Roberts observed, every presidential administration has interpreted Section 1225(b)(2)(C) as discretionary.

    The ”foreign affairs consequences” of requiring the government to return all asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for a hearing confirm, Roberts added, that the 5th Circuit’s interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2) is incorrect. The federal government cannot return asylum seekers to Mexico without the Mexican government’s cooperation, Roberts explained. Requiring the Biden administration to keep MPP in place, Roberts wrote, had “force[d] the Executive to the bargaining table with Mexico, over a policy that both countries wish to terminate” and allowed the district court to “supervise its continuing negotiations with Mexico to ensure that they are conducted ‘in good faith.’” “Congress did not,” Roberts concluded, “intend section 1225(b)(2)(C) to tie the hands of the Executive in this manner.”

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated that, with regard to whether the Biden administration can end MPP, she agreed with the majority’s analysis. But she would not have reached that question, because she would have sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether they had the power to enter an injunction requiring the Biden administration to reinstate MPP.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined Barrett’s dissent to the extent that she would have remanded the case to the lower courts; they did not agree that the majority had properly interpreted Section 1225(b)(c). Instead, in a dissent by Alito that Thomas and Gorsuch joined, they rejected the Biden administration’s contention that it is not required to either detain asylum seekers or return them to Mexico to await a hearing. The administration’s contention that “it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply release into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings” is a practice that “violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way.”

    This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    The October term 2022 preview

    September 26, 2022

    The morning read for Monday, Sept. 26

    September 26, 2022

    In Maryland prison-assault case, a request to clarify an important procedural question

    September 23, 2022
    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Editors Picks
    Recent Posts
    • An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos
    • Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction
    • When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish
    • Walmart and Target Are Hiring 140,000 Seasonal Workers
    • 7 Ways to Get Affordable Dental Care for Adults and Children
    Archives
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • September 2021
    Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Vimeo YouTube
    • Home
    © 2022 - 247 Local Media- All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.