Santa Cruz Sentinel

Supreme Court: Biden can end Trump-era asylum policy

- By Jessica Gresko and Elliot Spagat

WASHINGTON >> The Supreme Court said Thursday the Biden administra­tion can scrap a Trumpera immigratio­n policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigratio­n courts, a victory for a White House that still must address the growing number of people seeking refuge at America's southern border.

The ruling will have little immediate impact because the policy has been seldom applied under President Joe Biden, who reinstated it under a court order in December. It was his predecesso­r, Donald Trump, who launched the “Remain in Mexico” policy and fully embraced it.

Two conservati­ve justices joined their three liberal colleagues in siding with the White House.

Under Trump, the program enrolled about 70,000 people after it was launched in 2019. Biden suspended the policy, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office in January 2021. But lower courts ordered it reinstated in response to a lawsuit from Republican­led Texas and Missouri.

Dynamics at the border have changed considerab­ly since “Remain in Mexico” was a centerpiec­e of Trump's border policies.

Another Trump-era policy that remains in effect and was not a part of Thursday's ruling allows the government to quickly expel migrants without a chance to ask for asylum, casting aside U.S. law and an internatio­nal treaty on grounds of containing the spread of COVID-19. There have been more than 2 million expulsions since the pandemicer­a rule, known as Title 42 authority, was introduced in March 2020.

In May, a federal judge in Louisiana prevented the Biden administra­tion from halting Title 42, in a case that may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

The court's decision Thursday was released on the same day that the justices dealt the administra­tion a blow in an important environmen­tal case about the nation's main anti-air pollution law. That ruling could complicate the administra­tion's plans to combat climate change.

The heart of the legal fight in the immigratio­n case was about whether U.S. immigratio­n authoritie­s, with far less detention capacity than needed, had to send people to Mexico or whether those authoritie­s had the discretion under federal law to release asylum-seekers into the United States while they awaited their hearings.

After Biden's suspension of the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended it in June 2021. In October, the department produced additional justificat­ions for the policy's demise, but that was to no avail in the courts.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an appeals court “erred in holding that the” federal Immigratio­n and Nationalit­y Act “required the Government to continue implementi­ng MPP.” Joining the majority opinion was fellow conservati­ve Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump-appointee, as well as liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Kavanaugh also wrote separately and noted that in general, when there is insufficie­nt detention capacity, both releasing asylum-seekers into the United States and sending them back to Mexico “are legally permissibl­e options under the immigratio­n statutes.”

There was no immediate comment from the Biden or the Department of Homeland Security.

Cornell University law professor Stephen YaleLoehr, an immigratio­n expert, said the Biden administra­tion does not need to take any further action to end the policy, but that Texas and Missouri can pursue a challenge over whether the administra­tion followed appropriat­e procedure in ending the program.

In a dissent for himself and fellow conservati­ves Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the practice of releasing “untold numbers of aliens” into the United States “violates the clear terms of the law, but the court looks the other way.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she agreed with the majority's analysis of the merits of the case but would have sent the case back to a lower court for reconsider­ation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that the decision was “unfortunat­e.” He argued it would make “the border crisis worse. But it's not the end. 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.” Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, said the decision would “only embolden the Biden Administra­tion's open border policies.”

Since December, the administra­tion has registered only 7,259 migrants in “Remain in Mexico.” U.S. authoritie­s stopped migrants 1.2 million times on the Mexico border from December through May, illustrati­ng the policy's limited impact under Biden.

About 6 of every 10 people in the program are Nicaraguan­s. The administra­tion has said it would apply the policy to nationalit­ies that are less likely to be subject to the broader Title 42 policy. Strained diplomatic relations with Nicaragua makes it extremely difficult for the U.S. to expel people back to their homeland under Title 42.

Immigrant advocates acknowledg­ed that a relatively small number of asylum seekers arriving on the southwest border are affected by the MPP program with which the court ruling dealt. Still, advocates and Democrats were among those cheering the decision as were those waiting in Mexico.

Oscar Rene Cruz, a taxi driver from Nicaragua who is in a Salvation Army Shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, said after the ruling: “We are all very happy, waiting to see what is going to happen now with us, we know the program has finished but we haven't been told what they are going to do with us.”

 ?? GREGORY BULL — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE ?? A man from Nicaragua sits at a shelter for migrants in Tijuana, Mexico.
GREGORY BULL — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE A man from Nicaragua sits at a shelter for migrants in Tijuana, Mexico.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States