Mayorkas’ non-deportation policy survives Supreme Court challenge

The Supreme Court delivered a reprieve Friday to President Biden’s lenient immigration policies, shutting down an attempt by Republican-led states to derail Homeland Security’s limits on which illegal immigrants are targets for deportation.

Texas and Louisiana had argued that the administration was intentionally freeing illegal immigrants that were supposed to be detained under the law.

But the justices, in an 8-1 ruling, said immigration arrest decisions aren’t the sort of thing federal judges should be policing, and states lacked the legal standing to bring the case.

---

---

“In sum, the States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the lone dissenter, said the court’s ruling will limit the ways a wayward president can be brought into check. He said if states can’t sue to challenge non-enforcement decisions, there is little that can be done to stop a president refusing to enforce the law short of impeachment or Congress using its power of the purse to withhold money.

“This sweeping Executive Power endorsed by today’s decision may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power, but if Presidents can expand their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength with Congress, presumably Congress can cut executive power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable weapons at its disposal. That is not what the Constitution envisions,” he wrote.

The case touched the heart of immigration policy and presidential powers.

Though the Immigration and Nationality Act expresses a clear directive toward stiff enforcement, the Biden administration argues that the law is too outdated to face current global migration challenges, and what’s more, Congress hasn’t funded enforcement to the extent needed.

Those failures, the administration argues, leave it to Mr. Biden and his team to set priorities.

In particular, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas declared that being in the country illegally was no longer sufficient cause for detention and deportation. He said there must be extenuating circumstances, such as a particularly potent criminal record or indications of a threat to public safety.

Louisiana and Texas sued, arguing that the directive violates immigration law, which says the government “shall take custody” of illegal immigrants with certain criminal records.

In particular, Texas pointed to criminals serving time in state prisons that Homeland Security had previously said it wanted to try to deport, but for whom it canceled those requests in response to Mr. Mayorkas’s policy.

Among them was Heriberto Fuerte-Padilla, an immigrant in the country illegally who was driving drunk in 2020 when he smashed into the car driven by a Texas teenager, killing her. He tried to flee the scene, but police caught up with him.

The states said Mr. Mayorkas has spawned chaos within America’s immigration system, with record numbers of migrants rushing the border, even as deportations of those already here plummeted.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had assured the justices during oral argument last year that wasn’t a permanent condition. She blamed the coronavirus pandemic for the drop in arrests and deportations from inside the U.S.

Lower courts had sided with the states and had put Mr. Mayorkas’ policy on hold.

The case is U.S. v. Texas.