Supreme Court split over immigration law conflict

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court was divided over a clash between President Biden and the state of Texas over immigration control.

The question is whether existing law requires the federal authorities to arrest, detain and deport any “alien criminal” they encounter, or instead gives them the discretion to focus on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety.

This case is a serious test for the executive branch. In the past, judges have often given presidents leeway in matters of immigration enforcement.

But the current conservative majority in the court is increasingly expressing skepticism about the policies of the Biden administration.

It is also unclear whether the case will affect the day-to-day operation of immigration law.

Near the end of Tuesday’s argument, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that both Republican and Democratic administrations said they did not have the money or resources to arrest or detain all illegal immigrants in the country who have been charged with a felony.

That is unlikely to change, he told the Texas state attorney, even if his side wins the case.

The case began when Texas Atty. Gene. Ken Paxton sued to challenge the policy change when President Biden took office.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorcas has abandoned the Trump administration’s hardline approach and issued guidelines calling for a focus on detaining and deporting immigrants who pose a risk to public safety.

The Texas lawsuit alleged that the law requires the government to take enforcement action against tens of thousands of immigrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record.

He pointed to a provision passed by Congress in 1996 that federal authorities “must detain any alien” with a past “aggravated felony.”

The second provision states that the government “must detain” an immigrant who has been ordered to “deport” or deport.

Paxton filed suit at the Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton’s Corpus Christi courthouse. Tipton issued a sweeping ruling that the Mallorca memorandum was illegal and could not be carried out.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who defends the administration, told the court that the judge’s decision was wrong for several reasons.

She urged judges to curb the growing practice of states filing lawsuits to overturn or block presidential orders and policies they oppose.

Under the Trump administration, California and other Democratic-led states have been regularly sued to block conservative politics. Now Republican states are suing to challenge the Biden administration.

She also said that a single federal district judge should not be allowed to make a blanket decision that prevents administrations across the country from relying on a memo of instructions.

Finally, Prelogar said the law should not be interpreted as requiring the government to spend vast amounts of time and money searching for and apprehending hundreds of thousands of people who have committed crimes in the past.

According to her, “observance of such a rule would be impossible.”

The court’s three liberal judges appeared to agree with her, and several conservatives appeared to agree with part of her argument.

Judge Elena Kagan questioned why the state’s attorney and single judge “could stymie federal policy because the state could show a $1 loss.”

She was referring to the rulings, which said that plaintiffs could have standing if they could show damages of any amount.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said Texas might have a good argument.

“What if I think ‘should’ means ‘should’?” he said to Prelogar. “Our job is to say what the law is,” he said, even if the government cannot enforce it.

The judges are likely to rule in United States vs. Texas early next year.