The Supreme Court has given permission to the Biden administration to implement rules for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding deportations. These rules state that ICE should prioritize the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal convictions and those who pose a threat to national security. Texas and Louisiana, the two states that opposed these guidelines, were found to lack the legal standing to file the lawsuit.
The court’s decision was 8-1, with Justice Samuel Alito being the only dissenting voice. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the judgment, with Gorsuch and Barrett providing their own opinions.
This ruling is a significant victory for the Biden administration, as it affirms the broad powers of the executive branch to enforce federal immigration laws without interference from lawsuits. The case revolves around a memo issued by the Biden administration in 2021, directing ICE agents to prioritize the arrest of immigrants with serious criminal records, national security threats, and recent unauthorized entry into the U.S. The policy generally protects unauthorized immigrants who have been residing in the U.S. for years from arrest by ICE if they have not committed serious crimes.
The Biden administration argues that this memo allows ICE to focus its limited resources on apprehending and deporting immigrants who pose the greatest threats to public safety, national security, and border security. Republican officials from Texas and Louisiana challenged the memo in court, contending that it restricts ICE agents from fully enforcing immigration laws. Lower court judges initially blocked the policy, leading to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case.
Kavanaugh, in the majority opinion, called the lawsuit filed by Texas and Louisiana “extraordinarily unusual.” He stated that federal courts traditionally do not entertain lawsuits seeking to alter executive branch arrest policies. Kavanaugh emphasized that disputes over immigration arrests should be resolved through congressional appropriations, law changes, and federal elections. Allowing states to interfere in federal law enforcement beyond immigration matters could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences, he warned.
In his dissenting opinion, Alito criticized the majority’s decision, arguing that the states did have the right to sue over the ICE arrest policy. He contended that Congress had enacted a law requiring the apprehension and detention of certain illegal immigrants deemed to pose a risk to public safety, which the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security disagreed with.
This case is part of a broader legal battle between the Biden administration and Republican-led states. These states have successfully obtained court rulings to delay the termination of Title 42 border restrictions, reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum-seekers, block a 100-day moratorium on most deportations, halt new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and stop a policy aimed at addressing overcrowding in border facilities by quickly releasing migrants.