Biden asks court to cancel hearings on two of Trump’s migrant policies

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to cancel upcoming arguments on two cases important to former President Donald Trump: a funding dispute over the border wall and a policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are considered.

Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Biden has stopped construction of the wall and announced a review of the asylum program, called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).

Until those reviews are completed, she said, the court should suspend consideration of the lawsuits. The border wall case, now called Biden v. Sierra Club, is scheduled for argument Feb. 22. The immigration case is now called Pekoske v. Innovation Law Lab — David Pekoske is acting Homeland Security secretary — and is scheduled for March 1.

The request from Prelogar was expected: When the cases were granted last October, they seemed likely to become moot if Biden was elected because he was opposed to both. But it is the first official action at the Supreme Court to show the effects of the regime change.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents groups that sued the Trump administration in both cases, agreed with the request, Prelogar told the court.

The organization in a statement called on the new administration to do more than simply shut off funding for the wall.

“It’s a good start that the Biden administration is not rushing to defend Trump’s illegal wall in court, but just hitting the brakes isn’t enough. Trump’s wall devastated border communities, the environment, and tribal sites,” said Dror Ladin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.

“It’s time for the Biden administration to step up for border communities, and commit to mitigating environmental damage and tearing down the wall.”

The Trump administration had asked the court to intervene in both matters because of decisions against it in lower courts. Also in both cases, the justices had allowed the administration to proceed with its plans while the merits of the issues were litigated.