if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    supreme court ruling on remain in mexico policy

    James

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get supreme court ruling on remain in mexico policy from EN Bilgi.

    Supreme Court says Biden administration can end “remain in Mexico” policy

    The Trump administration created the Migrant Protection Protocols, also called “remain in Mexico,” in 2019 before the Biden administration canceled it in 2021. The ruling sends the case back to a Texas federal court.

    Supreme Court rules Biden administration can end “remain in Mexico” policy, sending case back to a Texas court

    The Trump administration created the Migrant Protection Protocols, also called “remain in Mexico,” in 2019 before the Biden administration canceled it in 2021. The ruling sends the case back to a Texas federal court.

    BY URIEL J. GARCÍA JUNE 30, 2022UPDATED: 12 HOURS AGO

    Asylum-seekers gathered at the Paso Del Norte International Bridge in Ciudad Juárez in February 2020. The group sought entry into the United States after learning that a federal court had blocked the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy.

    Credit:

    Jordyn Rozensky for The Texas Tribune

    Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration has the right to end a Trump-era immigration policy that forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their cases make their way through U.S. immigration courts.

    In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled against Texas and Missouri, which had argued that the Biden administration violated the law by rescinding the program, and sent the case back to the district court to determine if terminating the policy violated any administrative laws.

    But the justices determined that the government’s cancellation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, referred to as MPP and also called “remain in Mexico,” did not violate a section of immigration law that Texas and Missouri had used to argue that the Biden administration illegally ended the program.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three more liberal justices in the majority.

    It’s unclear if the Biden administration will try to end the program immediately or wait for the lower court to rule.

    The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Thursday evening that it welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision that it “has the discretionary authority to terminate the program, and we will continue our efforts to terminate the program as soon as legally permissible.” In the statement, DHS also said it will continue to punish immigrants who enter the country illegally and enforce Title 42, the emergency health order that immigration officials have used to quickly expel a majority of people attempting to enter the country.

    In the statement, Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, said “after a thorough review, the prior administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority efforts to secure our border.”

    Catch up on race and immigration news with our weekly newsletter

    César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an immigration attorney and law professor at Ohio State University, said that the Biden administration can immediately stop enforcing the program, but the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the door open for Texas and other states to continue pressing to force the administration to continue the program.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has sued the administration repeatedly over President Joe Biden’s immigration policies, said the rulingmakes the border crisis worse” but the battle isn’t over. “I’ll keep pressing forward and focus on securing the border and keeping our communities safe in the dozen other immigration suits I’m litigating in court,” Paxton said.

    Immigrant rights advocates celebrated the court’s ruling Thursday.

    “It is a bittersweet victory after so many lives have been lost to atrocious immigration deterrence policies both on the federal level and in the state of Texas," said Fernando García, executive director of Border Network for Human Rights based in El Paso. “This decision was long overdue, and it is shocking that the Supreme Court waited until today to determine the danger that migrants have been subjected to since Trump enacted this deadly policy.”

    The program was launched by the Trump administration in January 2019. After Biden took office, Mayorkas suspended the program in January 2021, then officially canceled it in June 2021.

    That led Texas and Missouri to sue the Biden administration in April 2021, arguing that canceling MPP violated administrative and immigration laws and that without the program, human trafficking would increase and force the states to expend resources on migrants — such as providing driver’s licenses, educating migrant children and providing hospital care.

    The case reached the Supreme Court after a federal district judge in Texas ruled last year that the Biden administration violated immigration law by not detaining every immigrant attempting to enter the country. In August 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk ordered the Biden administration to reinstate the policy.

    The administration argued it has the discretion to end the program and that it was not an effective way to deal with migrants seeking asylum.

    Source : www.texastribune.org

    Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump

    The Supreme Court ruled Biden can shut down the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" program, which was designed to restrict immigration at the southern border.

    SUPREME COURT

    Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy

    The policy required people seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their claims were decided.

    June 30, 2022, 2:12 PM UTC / Updated June 30, 2022, 11:55 PM UTC

    By Pete Williams

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court handed President Joe Biden a victory Thursday, ruling that he can shut down a Trump administration program designed to restrict immigration at the southern border.

    The court said in a 5-4 ruling that the Biden administration acted properly in seeking to end the "Remain in Mexico" policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. It required people seeking asylum at the southern border, mainly from Central America, to wait in Mexico while their claims were decided.

    Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said a lower court overreached when it found the policy had to remain in place.

    Under "the court of appeals’ interpretation," he wrote, a judge could "force the executive to the bargaining table with Mexico, over a policy that both countries wish to terminate, and to supervise its continuing negotiations with Mexico to ensure that they are conducted 'in good faith.'”

    Roberts was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

    In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel Alito criticized border policy and said it was his colleagues who erred.

    "Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded 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. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way," Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    In a separate dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she thought the court shouldn't have decided the case on the merits because more information was needed.

    Kavanaugh, in an opinion concurring with Roberts, noted the number of people sent back while the Trump administration was using the policy was "relatively small." "In general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both the parole option and the return-to-Mexico option are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes. As the recent history illustrates, every President since the late 1990s has employed the parole option, and President Trump also employed the return-to-Mexico option for a relatively small group of noncitizens," Kavanaugh wrote.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who'd filed suit to block the policy from being lifted, called the ruling "an unfortunate one."

    "Today’s decision makes the border crisis worse," Paxton said.

    Get the Morning Rundown

    Get a head start on the morning's top stories.

    Recommended

    CONGRESS

    Sen. Patrick Leahy ‘comfortably recovering’ after hip replacement surgery

    In a statement Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security said it would end the Trump-era program as soon as possible.

    "We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that the Secretary has the discretionary authority to terminate the program, and we will continue our efforts to terminate the program as soon as legally permissible," the department said.

    From late January 2019 until Biden suspended the program, more than 68,000 people were shuttled back to Mexico. Tent cities sprang up near border entry stations on the Mexican side of the border. Human rights groups said hundreds of asylum-seekers were kidnapped, raped, tortured or assaulted.

    Immediately after taking office, Biden ordered an end to the program. He cited the dangerous conditions along the border, the difficulty migrants faced in getting help from lawyers in the United States and the complications the program produced for America’s foreign policy dealings with Mexico.

    Biden quickly shut it down, but Texas and Mississippi sued. They said the Trump-era program vastly reduced the surge of migrants at the southern border, decreasing the numbers coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras by 80 percent. A federal court in Texas ruled for the states.

    U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for the Northern District of Texas said federal law required the government to send asylum-seekers back to Mexico if there was no room to detain them and if they cannot safely be allowed to wait in the U.S. for their claims to be evaluated. The Biden Department of Homeland Security, the judge said, failed to offer a sufficiently detailed explanation for why it wanted to abandon the policy.

    Kacsmaryk issued an injunction to prevent the government from shutting the program down, and a federal appeals court agreed, so the Trump policy was once again in effect. Last August, the Supreme Court also declined to let the White House shut the program down while the court case was working its way through the appeals process.

    The Justice Department argued that federal immigration law gave the government discretion to return migrants to Mexico while their asylum claims were considered or, on a case-by-case basis, to allow them to wait inside the U.S. if they would not present a danger. There simply isn’t enough space, given limited funds provided by Congress, to detain them all, government lawyers said.

    Source : www.nbcnews.com

    Supreme Court clears Biden to end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

    The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion for himself, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberals.

    COURTS & LAW

    Supreme Court clears Biden to end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

    Supreme Court clears Biden to end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion for himself, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberals

    By Robert Barnes

    Updated June 30, 2022 at 6:37 p.m. EDT|Published June 30, 2022 at 10:22 a.m. EDT

    @[email protected]#=img=#

    Migrant families from Central America walk along the U.S.-Mexico border near Sasabe, Ariz. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

    The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the Biden administration on a controversial immigration policy, saying it had the authority to reverse a Trump-era initiative that requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are reviewed in U.S. courts.

    Get the full experience.

    Choose your plan

    Lower courts had gone too far in requiring President Biden to keep in place policies that intruded on his ability to carry out the nation’s immigration procedures and foreign policy, wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. It was a rare win for the administration at the Supreme Court this term, and for the court’s liberal members who found themselves in the majority.

    The vote was 5 to 4, with Roberts writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, plus Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan from the left.

    ‘Remain in Mexico’ is back under Biden, with little resemblance to the Trump version

    At issue were the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) put in place by the Trump administration. Better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, it requires some asylum seekers who enter the country, mainly from Central and South America, to return to Mexico while they await a hearing. President Donald Trump said the program was necessary to curb what his administration characterized as a flood of meritless asylum claims by migrants seeking to be released into the United States.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The justices had expedited review of Biden’s attempt to get rid of the policy after a lower court judge said that the administration had not provided sufficient justification for ending it and that its procedures were unlawful.

    Roberts said federal immigration law gives the executive discretion: He may return asylum seekers to Mexico, but is not required to do so.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. Barrett said she agreed with much of the majority’s reasoning, but thought that the court should not have decided the case and should have remanded it to lower courts.

    Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion that this means six justices agreed on the merits, and said the court can only do so much to restore order in an immigration crisis brought about by a “stalemate” between Congress and the White House.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But this Court has authority to address only the legal issues before us.”

    Biden faces influx of migrants at the border amid calls to lift limits that aided expulsions

    Alito, writing for himself, Thomas and Gorsuch, said the Department of Homeland Security should not be free to “simply release into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way.”

    Judy Rabinovitz, special counsel with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, praised the ruling.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “The Supreme Court was right to reject the spurious argument that this cruel policy is statutorily required,” she said in a statement.

    “While, as noted in the decision, the case will return to the district court, the Biden administration can and should move forward swiftly to finally terminate ‘remain in Mexico’ for good — a result that has been long, and unjustly, delayed.”

    @[email protected]#=img=#

    A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer observes traffic at the U.S.-Mexico border in Laredo, Tex. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

    Shortly after taking office in January 2021, Biden said the administration would not continue enrolling migrants in the MPP and ordered a review. He and immigration rights groups said the policy was subjecting asylum seekers to dangerous conditions such as rape and torture, and complicating their legal proceedings in the United States. The program’s benefits, the Biden administration said, were “outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    But U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas ruled that the Biden administration did not adequately explain its reasons for canceling the policy and that its new procedures violated federal immigration law. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld his decision and the Supreme Court last summer refused the administration’s request to intervene. Instead, it scheduled an expedited hearing.

    Supreme Court weighs Biden attempt to rescind Trump immigration policy

    Roberts said the decision centered on the immigration law’s language that “In the case of an alien … who is arriving on land … from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Homeland Security secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding.”

    Source : www.washingtonpost.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 5 month ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer