Biden Admin Tells Supreme Court Judges Cannot Strike Down Agency Decisions in Immigration Case

[mystery-ak]

Biden Admin Tells Supreme Court Judges Cannot Strike Down Agency Decisions in Immigration Case

Ken Klukowski 30 Nov 2022 Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC – The Biden administration argued in a Supreme Court immigration case Tuesday that states have no standing to sue the federal government over illegal immigration policies, and courts lack the power to strike them down anyway.

Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana sued the Biden administration over immigration policy, arguing that so-called enforcement guidelines as developed and administered by the Justice Department and Homeland Security Department violate certain provisions of federal law.

The states – joined by three dozen more states filing supporting briefs – sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), authorizes judges to “hold unlawful and set aside” – which means to vacate – agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, “or otherwise not in accordance with law.” It is the law most commonly used to sue federal agencies for acting inconsistently with federal statutes passed by Congress.

At issue are provisions of immigration law where Congress in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) said authorities “shall detain” aliens who are convicted of aggravated felonies. But the Biden administration issued a guidance memo saying that instead aliens should be detained only if the agency determines they are a threat to public safety, listing various factors for making that determination.

Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas rendered judgment in favor of the states, vacating (i.e., striking down) the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The Biden administration argued in response states have no standing to bring such a lawsuit at all in court, and courts lack the constitutional power to do what the states were asking anyway.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2022/11/30/biden-supreme-court-agency-decisions-immigration/

[Kamaji]

[Timber Rattler]

Even Jackson gagged on that argument.  If that's true, then why have federal judicial review at all?  It's completely insulting for the judiciary, the THIRD branch of government.  But it's the culmination of Obama's novel (Marxist) theory about the "positive powers" of government.

[Free Vulcan]

While I believe that the FedGov has near plenary power over controlling immigration, do they have the same power to be completely absentee and NOT do anything about it, especially when it is overwhelming towns/cities, counties and states?.

The National border is also the State, County, and City border, so do they have zero interest here, or ability to step in when the FedGov is deliberately failing, and evading the law?

[Kamaji]

Interesting little tid-bit from Kagan:

Justice Elena Kagan also focused on the issue of standing but leaning the opposite direction, expressing skepticism that Texas and Louisiana had standing to bring this matter to court, saying “it’s hard to think of” federal policies that states could not challenge in federal court if they could – as the states did here – come up with a dollar amount of damages the states claim resulted from a federal policy, calling such claims of harm “speculative.”

That, however, was precisely the argument the Court accepted in allowing universities to challenge President Trump's immigration policies - that there was a dollar figure of damage they were suffering as a result of the Trump immigration policy they were complaining about.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.