Victory for Biden on the Supreme Court

(Reuters)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with President Joe Biden as he seeks to end the harsh immigration policy begun under his predecessor Donald Trump, which forced tens of thousands of migrants to stay in Mexico to await their hearing waiting for asylum applications in the US.

In a 5-4 ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court overturned a federal appeals court decision that had required Biden to reinstate Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy after Republican-led states ruled Texas and Missouri had sued to keep the program.

“Humane” approach

The ruling is a victory for Biden, who appealed the lower court’s decision, and for his plan to implement a more “humane” approach on the southern border. The judges concluded that the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Circuits erred in finding that federal immigration law requires migrants to be repatriated to Mexico unless there is sufficient space to accommodate them in the United States hold states.

The judges also overturned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to void the government’s June 2021 decision to end the program. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government failed to properly reason for the reversal of the Trump policy, in violation of federal administrative law.

However, the Supreme Court noted that the June 2021 decision was superseded by a new, more detailed decision that the administration issued four months later. The Trump administration introduced the policy, officially known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” in 2018 in response to increasing migration along the US-Mexico border, changing long-standing US practice. It prevented certain non-Mexican migrants, including asylum seekers who fear persecution in their home countries, from being released to the United States to await their immigration process and sent them back to Mexico instead.

Biden suspended the “remain in Mexico” policy in January 2021 shortly after taking office and lifted it five months later. From the time it came into effect in 2019 until it was suspended by Biden, around 68,000 people have been covered by this policy. The case concerned the meaning of a provision of a 1996 US immigration law that allows US authorities to “return” certain immigrants to Mexican territory pending the completion of an immigration process.

Missing detention places?

Texas and Missouri have stated that this provision must be applied because of a lack of migrant detention facilities in the United States. Biden’s administration said the provision was clearly discretionary, and the lower court’s decision meant that “every consecutive presidential administration over the past quarter century has flagrantly violated the law.”

Governments prior to Trump’s presidency had made sparing use of this provision. The Biden administration said lower courts are unacceptably interfering with the historically sweeping powers US presidents have over immigration and foreign affairs.

For migrants who do not pose a security risk, the immigration law provides that they can be released pending a hearing in the United States on humanitarian grounds or because of “significant public benefit,” a practice that authorities have used for decades.

Risk of kidnappings in border towns

Biden’s Democratic peers and immigration advocates have criticized Trump’s policies, saying migrants stuck in Mexican border towns face kidnapping and other dangers. The number of migrants apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border has recently hit a record high.

Republicans have criticized Biden’s immigration policy, claiming that the “remain in Mexico” policy was effective in preventing illegal immigration. After a judge ruled in favor of Texas and Missouri and reinstated the program, the Supreme Court last August denied the Biden administration’s request to block the decision pending appeal.

The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that the government was unable to hold all eligible migrants pending a hearing, and “remain in Mexico” must remain in place.

The decision was made on the last day of the court’s nine-month term.