The GOP's latest immigration weapon: The courts

Hi, hi, Recast fam! Sabrina is back as our guest host filling in for Brakkton today. Vice President Kamala Harris has tested positive for Covid-19, Elon Musk has reached a deal to buy Twitter and the world health community is at odds over how to handle the next phase of the pandemic battle. But today, we’re starting off talking about the courts and immigration. President Joe Biden promised on the campaign trail that, if elected, he would end the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy. On Biden’s first day in office, the administration announced it was effectively suspending the program, which forced thousands of migrants to wait in Mexico for their asylum cases to be processed. Then they got sued by Republican-led Texas and Missouri. Fast forward 15 months, and the “Remain in Mexico” policy — known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols — is still around. Why? The U.S. courts. The Supreme Court today heard arguments in Biden v. Texas, a case that could determine whether the Biden administration must keep the controversial Trump-era policy in place or can rescind it — as it has already tried to do twice. The case is part of a larger pattern of Republican-led states looking to the courts — namely in districts with Trump-appointed judges — to shoot down Biden’s immigration policy. “This has become a way for Republicans to challenge and tear apart any administration policy on immigration that they don’t like, which is most of them,” said David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “They’ve been very successful at stalling the president’s agenda on immigration.” The case before the Supreme Court today has gone back and forth between the courts since U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas-based appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled in August that the policy had to be reinstated. In December, the Biden administration announced it would restart the program, which human rights activists and advocates have long argued puts migrants at risk of violence in Mexican border towns. Immigration lawyers, immigrant advocates and U.S. officials say the stakes go beyond the “Remain in Mexico” policy and could have major ramifications on Biden’s (and future presidents’) ability to undo a former president’s policies and enact new ones. The judiciary “has become a weapon of Republicans to not only stop policy but in the instance of Biden v. Texas, they’re trying to create the Remain in Mexico policy again via the judiciary and that’s just not their job,” said Alida Garcia, former senior migration adviser in the Biden White House and longtime immigrant advocate. Garcia explained that the case goes beyond immigration, as it puts into question whether a sitting president has the ability to make foreign policy decisions — or if an appointed federal district court judge can mandate what the U.S. government does in another country, given that restarting MPP required negotiations with the Mexican government. The practice of GOP-led states looking to the judiciary to block Democrats’ immigration policies is not entirely new, immigration lawyers and advocates say. In 2014, Texas was joined by 25 other states in suing to block the Obama administration from implementing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which would have offered legal status to parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. It was ultimately blocked in the courts. Texas has led the charge against Biden’s immigration policies. Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the Biden administration’s plans to lift the pandemic restriction on the U.S. southern border, known as Title 42. Paxton’s office, in a statement, noted the Title 42 lawsuit is “his 10th border crisis lawsuit against the Biden Administration — and the 26th overall against his lawless administration.” On Monday, in a separate case from Paxton’s latest lawsuit, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Louisiana, U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays, announced his intent to temporarily block the Biden administration from lifting Title 42, the public health order invoked by Trump in March 2020 that allows border agents to quickly kick out migrants without letting them seek asylum. For weeks, Republicans and a growing number of Democrats have criticized the Biden administration for its plan to lift Title 42 on May 23. But Garcia and other immigrant advocates say all the talk of Title 42 distracts from a real need for Congress to step up and pass new immigration laws. Congress has failed to pass immigration reform for decades. “We really need some adults in the room to have an honest conversation and not a political conversation about a very complex policy problem,” Garcia said. The next court hearing on Title 42 is May 13. And a ruling on the MPP case in the Supreme Court isn’t expected until late spring or early summer. We’ll be keeping an eye on any developments in the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned. Visit us for more information at: http://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/index.html