Supreme Court Forced to Play Whack-a-Mole on Immigration
Lower courts calculate that some of their absurd rulings will survive due to SCOTUS time constraints
By Dan Cadman on October 25, 2019
My colleague Andrew Arthur has recently written about a couple of the immigration-related cases that will occupy the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in its current session (see, e.g., here and here). The cases are, of course, the result of appeals of decisions made by the lower level district and circuit courts.
I, too, have been writing about the judiciary lately — about the judicial activism consuming the country, particularly on the progressive eastern and western coastal corridors, that has resulted in so many petitions being filed with the high court. In my view, much of the reason that immigration matters are eating up so much of the finite time and resources of our judicial system, often to the detriment of other important matters, is because of the lopsided concept of standing, which prevails in the federal system. Standing inevitably favors aliens whenever the government takes an action that might be considered adverse, whether that is an attempt to remove an alien in accordance with federal statutes or because an alien is denied one of the many benefits, including discretionary decisions such as "deferred action", which is clearly an act of ministerial grace, not statutory mandate.
https://cis.org/Cadman/Supreme-Court-Forced-Play-WhackaMole-Immigration
