Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win on challenge to ICE enforcement policy

[mystery-ak]

 Supreme Court rules Biden administration can choose who to deport
by Rafael Bernal and Rebecca Beitsch - 06/23/23 10:24 AM ET

Texas and Louisiana do not have authority to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines for when to deport migrants from the country, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a knock to the two states most active in challenging President Biden’s immigration policies.

In an 8-1 decision, the court determined the two states lacked the standing to sue over one of the Department of Homeland Security’s earliest directives.

“The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

“But this Court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’”

DEVELOPING…

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4064299-supreme-court-rules-biden-administration-can-choose-who-to-deport/

[libertybele]

This is horrible news!

Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win on challenge to ICE enforcement policy

The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Biden administration a major victory on a key immigration case — ruling that GOP-led states do not have standing to challenge a policy narrowing federal immigration enforcement.

The justices, in an 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Texas, found that Republican states did not have standing to challenge a narrowing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) priorities for arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants.

"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 opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said.

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenting justice.............

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hands-biden-admin-major-win-immigration-case

[Kamaji]

As I posted on another thread, this is one reason why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.  Without having a say in the composition of the Senate, the states are very vulnerable to misconduct by the federal executive.

[MOD3]

Moved to SCOTUS News

[SZonian]

Title should read "Supreme Court hands the USA a major loss..."
Effin' bastards.

[Kamaji]

Title should read "Supreme Court hands the USA a major loss..."
Effin' bastards.

Why?  The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the law, not on the basis of someone's favored outcome.

I agree that the outcome is negative; but it is a structural issue that was supposed to be mitigated by the States having authority over the Senate, a rather delicate balance that was destroyed when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

[libertybele]

As I posted on another thread, this is one reason why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.  Without having a say in the composition of the Senate, the states are very vulnerable to misconduct by the federal executive.

?? Doesn't the 17th amendment state  that the voters should elect their Senators?

What about the 10th amendment and states' rights? 

I'm not a legal scholar like you, and I'm a little confused here.

[Kamaji]

?? Doesn't the 17th amendment state  that the voters should elect their Senators?

What about the 10th amendment and states' rights? 

I'm not a legal scholar like you, and I'm a little confused here.

The 17th Amendment makes Senators popularly elected ("by the people"), which changed the original rule, under which Senators were chosen by the legislatures of each state.

In other words, the 17th Amendment simply makes the Senate an adjunct to the House, and removes the states' ability to provide something of a counterpoint to the latent mobocracy in the House.