SCOTUS RULING: UNITED STATES v. TEXAS
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a decision in U.S. v. Texas. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in an 8-1 decision that Texas and Loiusiana did not have Article III standing to bring a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Guidelines. This ruling reinstates the Biden Administration’s 2021 “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law”.
CASE BACKGROUND
This case stems back to September 2021, when Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas issued the memorandum “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Guidelines provided ICE officers the ability to exercise discretion and prioritize arrests and removal of non-citizens who are deemed “a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security.” Such guidelines are not a novel practice, in fact, due to limited resources, immigration enforcement officials have been in practice of prosecutorial discretion long before the Biden Administration.
Texas and Louisiana brought suit, arguing that the Guidelines violated statutory arrest mandates in §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2), and essentially that “ICE must arrest more immigrants who do not fit these criteria” SCOTUS agreed to hear the case after a lower Texas court Judge Tipton ruled to block the Guidelines.
SCOTUS held,”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. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this. “The States lack Article III standing to bring the suit because they have not shown a judicially cognizable interest or injury, one of the elements required to prove standing” And because the States lack Article III standing, the District Court did not have jurisdiction.
SCOTUS made it clear the “holding is limited to the Executive Branch’s decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion over arrests and prosecutions.” “Kavanaugh’s opinion also reaffirms a longstanding doctrine, known as “prosecutorial discretion,” which permits law enforcement officials to determine who to arrest, and who to otherwise enforce the law against, without interference from the judiciary.”
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE RULING
State actors wasted taxpayer dollars to file a legal suit that essentially sought to use the judiciary branch to help them enforce their own interests– more immigration arrests. As SCOTUS stated, “By ensuring that a plaintiff has standing to sue, federal courts “prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”
Indeed, “Had the high court accepted Texas and Louisiana’s arguments, Kavanaugh warned, such a ruling could have allowed states to interfere in federal law enforcement beyond immigration matters. “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like,” he wrote. “We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”
The decision in this case, in its own way, reinstates the power back to federal agencies to carry out immigration and enforcement duties without the intrusion from State actors. This case further highlights that discretion enforcement protocols are not the end all be all, and instead shows the need for Congress to urgently pass sensible bipartisan immigration reform once and for all.