August 25, 2021

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday night rejected the Biden administration’s plea for a reprieve from a district-court order requiring it to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the 'remain in Mexico' policy..."

"... which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court.... The decision means that the Biden administration must resume enforcing the policy 'in good faith' while litigation continues in the lower courts.... [Texas and Missouri] contend that, without the policy, large numbers of migrants can enter the United States based on dubious asylum claims, imposing costs on the states....  The states rejected the administration’s argument that requiring it to reinstate the policy would lead to 'chaos at the border'... Indeed, the states noted, news reports have indicated that the Biden administration itself has 'privately discussed' reviving the policy because of the problems at the border.... In a brief unsigned order issued shortly before 8 p.m. on Tuesday night, the court explained that the Biden administration was not likely to succeed – one of the criteria for obtaining this kind of request for emergency relief – in showing that its decision to end the policy was not 'arbitrary and capricious' – that is, reasonable and reasonably explained. The order cited the court’s 2020 ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era policy that protected people who were brought as children to the U.S. without authorization. In Regents, the court held that the Trump administration had not properly explained its decision to end DACA."

22 comments:

Drago said...

The execrable Lawfare Blog and their sycophantic "LLR" cuckholsters hardest hit.

Leland said...

I don't see the Pelosi controlled House impeaching Biden for ignoring this court order, so I expect his administration to act accordingly.

Kevin said...

The states rejected the administration’s argument that requiring it to reinstate the policy would lead to 'chaos at the border'...

... at the same time the Administration was arguing to the American People that chaos in Afghanistan was necessary and expected to meet the Administration's own policy objectives.

Iman said...

“in good faith”

Very subjective and leaves stadium-sized wiggle room that these knobs will exploit.

Yancey Ward said...

The difference, of course, is this- the Biden Administration will simply ignore SCOTUS on this and not enforce the policy.

Gospace said...

Got one word.

Wow!

wendybar said...

It's about time some common sense was used for this decision. It should have happened months ago...but instead we have to deal with partisan judges that are party first, screw America.

rehajm said...

'In good faith' are the weasel words the administration will use to ignore the ruling.

rehajm said...

...we're also now learning in today's upside down world a 'racist' law is justification for liberal to ignore.

Lucien said...

Who could have foreseen that the "resistance" litigation against the Trump Administration's policies would be mirrored after Trump was gone, resulting in injunctions against "progressive" policies?

Readering said...

Of course the majority are citing a Roberts opinion the other 4 of them then on the Court dissented from. Will be interesting to see the opinions on the merits if Biden pursues the appeal instead of redoing the executive order.

Joe Smith said...

'The difference, of course, is this- the Biden Administration will simply ignore SCOTUS on this and not enforce the policy.'

How many divisions does SCOTUS have?

JaimeRoberto said...

Well gosh, we tried to get the Mexican government to work with us to reinstate that policy, but they didn't go along. I guess the floodgates will have to remain open. We tried.

Yancey Ward said...

Are the liberals on the court also changing their tune on the same kind of case here? Looks like to me Roberts is the only one who is on the majority of both decisions.

Yancey Ward said...

And if I am right, the then liberals on the court have disgraced themselves as usual.

Leora said...

Institutional points for consistency.

Tom T. said...

Slightly off-topic: SCOTUSblog typically does a commendable job of reporting decisions neutrally and factually, even in politically-charged cases. They're a nice example of what old-school journalism used to be like.

Readering said...

The three remaining liberals opined that Biden met the APA under the circumstances.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
The difference, of course, is this- the Biden Administration will simply ignore SCOTUS on this and not enforce the policy.

I don't think so. Because if they do, the response will be the Administration losing every case that's even close, including a bunch of cases where "they lose" means they really do lose and there's nothing they can do about it

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Readering said...
Of course the majority are citing a Roberts opinion the other 4 of them then on the Court dissented from.

Ah, so you're saying they're honoring stare decisis? So you're on their side, right?

You do understand the concept of "precedent", yes?

Because you lefties really like stare decisis, no?

As opposed to the 3 lefties on the Court, who completely ignored the opinion they voted for last year.

It's almost like left wingers are totally unprincipled, amoral piles of semi-human garbage who have absolutely nothing inside themselves other than a lust for power.

I'm shocked, shocked!

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
And if I am right, the then liberals on the court have disgraced themselves as usual.

You have to have a sense of shame before you can be disgraced.

But yes, all three voted against honoring their precedent in DHS v. Regents of the University of California. Which I would guess we're all shocked about

Bunkypotatohead said...

So Biden can just go to Laurence Tribe again for advice how to circumvent the court. It worked 2 weeks ago.