![]() ![]() But they certainly allow him to do so.) Just six days into Biden’s presidency, for example, Tipton granted Paxton’s request to block a 100-day pause on deportations that the new administration announced in its first week.Īt the very least, the Court’s Texas decision should mean that judges like Tipton can no longer decide who is or is not arrested. (To be clear, there is no evidence that these rules were created for the purpose of allowing someone like Paxton to game the process used to assign cases to judges. From the earliest days of the Biden administration, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken advantage of the unusual rules permitting him to often choose which judge hears his cases to secure court orders blocking President Biden’s immigration policies. ![]() The decision is a serious blow to Republican efforts to control federal immigration policy by seeking injunctions from sympathetic judges. 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. Just as a private citizen may not sue to force the government to arrest or prosecute someone else, a state government also may not bring such a lawsuit. That rule, Kavanaugh announces, controls the Texas case. (1973) that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” As Kavanaugh explains, the plaintiff states “have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions.” To the contrary, the Court held in Linda R. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Texas holds that no federal judge should have ever even considered this case. In one of the most predictable events in the US judiciary’s history, Tipton promptly obliged the two states by striking down Mayorkas’s guidelines. Moreover, because Texas federal courts often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case by deciding to file their lawsuits in specific parts of the state, these two red states chose Tipton - a staunchly anti-immigrant judge who has been a thorn in the Biden administration’s side since the first week of his presidency - to hear this lawsuit. Two red states, Texas and Louisiana, sued, essentially arguing that ICE must arrest more immigrants who do not fit these criteria. The case concerned 2021 guidelines, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, that instructed ICE agents to prioritize enforcement efforts against undocumented or otherwise removable immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being.” Only Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most reliable Republican partisan, dissented. ![]() Texas was 8–1, with all eight justices in the majority concluding that Tipton didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place - though they split 5-3 on why Tipton lacked jurisdiction. On Friday, the Supreme Court ended Tipton’s reign over ICE’s enforcement priorities. More than a year ago, a Trump-appointed judge named Drew Tipton effectively seized control of parts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that enforces immigration laws within the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |