The Supreme Court ruled the Biden administration could end a Trump-era program that sent some migrants seeking asylum back to Mexico to await their immigration court proceedings. The ruling limits the power of federal courts in other immigration cases.
A migrant from Haiti waits with others at a clinic for migrants in Tijuana, on Monday, May 23, 2022. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration properly ended a Trump-era policy forcing some U.S. asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico. The Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration could end a Trump-era program called “Remain in Mexico” that sent some migrants seeking asylum back to Mexico to await their immigration court proceedings.
The Trump administration created the Migrant Protection Protocols or "Remain in Mexico" program in January of 2019 via aThe Biden administration suspended all new enrollments in January 2021. By June 2021, DHS published a memo terminating the program. But in August 2021, a federal court ordered the administration to implement it again, after Texas and Missouri sued DHS. The case made it up to the Supreme Court.
The law says an immigrant "shall" be detained while their immigration case is pending. But DHS has never had the capacity to detain all immigrants awaiting proceedings. Instead, DHS prioritizes which immigrants to detain. Following the lower court’s ruling that DHS had to reinstate the program, the Biden administration began negotiations with the Mexican government. In December 2021, DHS implemented a series of changes to the original Trump-era program.the group of people included in the "Remain in Mexico" program to all Western Hemisphere nationals, excluding Mexicans, as opposed to nationals of Spanish-speaking countries and Brazil. But the program also included more individual exceptions.
The court sent the issue back to DHS, at which point the agency had two options. It could either provide a more detailed explanation for ending the program, or it could take a new agency action to terminate it. ending the program. This is what happened in the "Remain in Mexico" case. DHS ended the program, and Texas sued the government. The lower court issued an injunction ordering the federal government to reinstate the policy while the case was under litigation.This decision allows lower courts to rule on whether an immigration program is illegal but limits their ability to take action to provide relief, said Andrew Arthur at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors low immigration levels.
Singapore Latest News, Singapore Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Vulnerable House Dem compares Supreme Court prayer decision to Taliban, calls for court-packingRep. Susan Wild, D-Penn., compared the Supreme Court's decision regarding the high school football coach fired for silently praying after games to the Taliban.
Read more »
‘Operation Higher Court’: Inside the religious right’s efforts to wine and dine Supreme Court justicesA former evangelical leader details his group’s extensive program to influence Justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia through meals and entertainment.
Read more »
How Congress Can Preempt the Most Dangerous Possible Ruling of the Next Supreme Court TermHow to convince 10 Republican senators to act in the best interest of democracy this one time.
Read more »
Supreme Court Justice Breyer has options as a retireeUntil last week when he swore in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, his successor on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer had a rigorous, intellectually challenging job with the highest of stakes.
Read more »
Roberts, Kavanaugh helped liberals notch small victories at Supreme CourtAs goes Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, so went the Supreme Court, at least over the last term.
Read more »
The Supreme Court makes a hard right turn — and the nation lurches backward | EditorialIn cases involving abortion rights, climate change, gun safety, and the separation of church and state, the justices' decisions ran counter to public opinion — and legal precedent.
Read more »