SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A handcuffed and shackled Guatemalan migrant in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody waits to board a deportation flight in Mesa, Arizona. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
'Absolutely Nonsensical': Supreme Court Blocks Biden From Limiting Deportations
"SCOTUS has basically just allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas the power to tell a president what immigration priorities it can and can't enforce. Crazy."
Jul 21, 2022
In what one immigration campaigner blasted as "a radical, unprecedented decision," the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from resuming a policy limiting migrant deportations.
"The anti-immigrant judicial pipeline is gushing."
In a 5-4 vote the court rejected an emergency appeal from the administration and upheld an order from a Texas judge compelling the government to deport immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, tweeted: "At stake in this case is a fundamental question; can a president choose who to target for deportation? For generations, the answer was yes. The Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed this point. But now that discretion is at risk of being stripped away."
Shortly after taking office, Biden, disavowing former President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, issued guidance prioritizing the deportation of people deemed to pose the biggest risk to public safety.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in saying they would have granted the administration's request. It was Jackson's first public vote since joining the court.
The high court said it would hear oral arguments in the case, United States v. Texas, in December.
Thursday's decision was a victory for Republican leaders in Texas and Louisiana who have sued the Biden administration over its guidance. Immigration campaigners, however, denounced the high court's vote.
"SCOTUS has basically just allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas the power to tell a president what immigration priorities it can and can't enforce," tweeted the advocacy group El Otro Lado. "Crazy."
Reichlin-Melnick noted that "the Supreme Court repeatedly granted the Trump administration emergency relief in situations that were far less extreme than this order."
He continued:
This is a radical decision that makes clear that the Supreme Court is picking favorites, and it's not the Biden [Justice Department]. This means that for at least eight to 10 months, the secretary of homeland security has been effectively barred from instructing [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and [Customs and Border Protection] agents how to carry out their duties, unless he can convince a single judge in Texas to okay his orders.
"This case was the perfect example of a situation where emergency relief should have been granted; a radical, unprecedented decision granting nationwide relief to restrict a core function of a cabinet officer, and in direct conflict with another appeals court," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Yet SCOTUS said OK."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
joe bidensonia sotomayorus department of homeland securityus supreme courttexasamy coney barrettimmigrationlouisiana
In what one immigration campaigner blasted as "a radical, unprecedented decision," the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from resuming a policy limiting migrant deportations.
"The anti-immigrant judicial pipeline is gushing."
In a 5-4 vote the court rejected an emergency appeal from the administration and upheld an order from a Texas judge compelling the government to deport immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, tweeted: "At stake in this case is a fundamental question; can a president choose who to target for deportation? For generations, the answer was yes. The Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed this point. But now that discretion is at risk of being stripped away."
Shortly after taking office, Biden, disavowing former President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, issued guidance prioritizing the deportation of people deemed to pose the biggest risk to public safety.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in saying they would have granted the administration's request. It was Jackson's first public vote since joining the court.
The high court said it would hear oral arguments in the case, United States v. Texas, in December.
Thursday's decision was a victory for Republican leaders in Texas and Louisiana who have sued the Biden administration over its guidance. Immigration campaigners, however, denounced the high court's vote.
"SCOTUS has basically just allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas the power to tell a president what immigration priorities it can and can't enforce," tweeted the advocacy group El Otro Lado. "Crazy."
Reichlin-Melnick noted that "the Supreme Court repeatedly granted the Trump administration emergency relief in situations that were far less extreme than this order."
He continued:
This is a radical decision that makes clear that the Supreme Court is picking favorites, and it's not the Biden [Justice Department]. This means that for at least eight to 10 months, the secretary of homeland security has been effectively barred from instructing [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and [Customs and Border Protection] agents how to carry out their duties, unless he can convince a single judge in Texas to okay his orders.
"This case was the perfect example of a situation where emergency relief should have been granted; a radical, unprecedented decision granting nationwide relief to restrict a core function of a cabinet officer, and in direct conflict with another appeals court," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Yet SCOTUS said OK."
In what one immigration campaigner blasted as "a radical, unprecedented decision," the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from resuming a policy limiting migrant deportations.
"The anti-immigrant judicial pipeline is gushing."
In a 5-4 vote the court rejected an emergency appeal from the administration and upheld an order from a Texas judge compelling the government to deport immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, tweeted: "At stake in this case is a fundamental question; can a president choose who to target for deportation? For generations, the answer was yes. The Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed this point. But now that discretion is at risk of being stripped away."
Shortly after taking office, Biden, disavowing former President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, issued guidance prioritizing the deportation of people deemed to pose the biggest risk to public safety.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in saying they would have granted the administration's request. It was Jackson's first public vote since joining the court.
The high court said it would hear oral arguments in the case, United States v. Texas, in December.
Thursday's decision was a victory for Republican leaders in Texas and Louisiana who have sued the Biden administration over its guidance. Immigration campaigners, however, denounced the high court's vote.
"SCOTUS has basically just allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas the power to tell a president what immigration priorities it can and can't enforce," tweeted the advocacy group El Otro Lado. "Crazy."
Reichlin-Melnick noted that "the Supreme Court repeatedly granted the Trump administration emergency relief in situations that were far less extreme than this order."
He continued:
This is a radical decision that makes clear that the Supreme Court is picking favorites, and it's not the Biden [Justice Department]. This means that for at least eight to 10 months, the secretary of homeland security has been effectively barred from instructing [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and [Customs and Border Protection] agents how to carry out their duties, unless he can convince a single judge in Texas to okay his orders.
"This case was the perfect example of a situation where emergency relief should have been granted; a radical, unprecedented decision granting nationwide relief to restrict a core function of a cabinet officer, and in direct conflict with another appeals court," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Yet SCOTUS said OK."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.