Supreme Court Orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy Reinstated

August 25, 2021 by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy Reinstated

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday evening refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.

With the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, the unsigned ruling said the administration likely violated federal law in its efforts to rescind the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

Though the court did not explain the rationale behind its decision in detail, the majority in the 6-3 ruling said the Biden administration appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously when it rescinded the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.

The majority also cited the court’s decision last year in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. 

That decision blocked the Trump administration’s effort to undo the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era program protecting young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

The three dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, did not write an opinion expressing their views of the case.

A federal judge in Texas had previously ordered that the program be reinstated last week. Both he and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s request to put the ruling on hold.

Instead the 5th Circuit ordered an expedited consideration of the administration’s appeal.

The Justice Department had asked the court last week to suspend the lower court’s order, saying the MPP “has been formally suspended for seven months and largely dormant for nearly nine months before that.”

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily halted the order to allow for the administration to file documents to make its case, but the court ultimately denied it.

It’s not clear how many people will be affected and how quickly. Under the lower court ruling, the administration must make a “good faith effort” to restart the program.

But there is nothing in any of the court documents that explicitly prevents it from trying to rescind the program again.

In the meantime, immigration advocates said that in reinstating the program, the justices were ignoring the dangers associated with it.

“Thousands of people have suffered the horrible consequences of the Migrant Protection Protocols. The Supreme Court has now upheld the Texas court’s decision and, instead of keeping MPP a stain in the history books, it will continue to be a present-day disaster,” Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council, said in a statement.

“Forcing vulnerable families and children to wait in provisional camps in Mexico puts their lives at risk, while also making it nearly impossible for them to access the asylum process. The Biden administration can and must work to terminate the policy again immediately. Rather than turning away people fleeing harm, we should ensure people have a fair day in court,” she said.

In a statement posted to its website last night, the Department of Homeland Security said it respectfully disagrees with the district court’s decision and regrets that the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay. 

“DHS has appealed the district court’s order and will continue to vigorously challenge it,” the statement said. “As the appeal process continues, however, DHS will comply with the order in good faith. Alongside interagency partners, DHS has begun to engage with the Government of Mexico in diplomatic discussions surrounding the Migrant Protection Protocols. 

“DHS remains committed to building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values. DHS continues to process individuals in accordance with U.S. law and our mission. Pursuant to the CDC’s Title 42 public health order, DHS continues to expel single adults and families encountered at the Southwest Border,” the statement concluded.

A+
a-
  • Immigration
  • Samuel Alito
  • stay-in-place
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    May 16, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Hold Consumer Protection Agency’s Funding Is Constitutional

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a constitutional challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling the mechanism... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a constitutional challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling the mechanism used to fund the agency does not violate the appropriations clause. The decision, by a 7-2 vote, ended what many considered the most dangerous legal challenge... Read More

    70 Years Ago, School Integration was a Dream Many Believed Could Actually Happen. It Hasn't.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Seventy years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled separating children in schools by race was... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Seventy years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled separating children in schools by race was unconstitutional. On paper, that decision — the fabled Brown v. Board of Education, taught in most every American classroom — still stands. But for decades, American schools... Read More

    April 25, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Loud, Raucous Crowd Gathers Outside Supreme Court, but MAGA Hard to Find

    WASHINGTON — They banged on pots. They banged on pans. They raised their voices and even jingled a few tambourines. ... Read More

    WASHINGTON — They banged on pots. They banged on pans. They raised their voices and even jingled a few tambourines.  All in the hope of making their opinions plain to the nine justices assembled inside to hear the most consequential and final case of the current... Read More

    April 25, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Cautious Over Claims of Absolute Immunity for Trump

    WASHINGTON — Comments from Supreme Court justices Thursday indicated former President Donald Trump is likely to face criminal and civil... Read More

    WASHINGTON — Comments from Supreme Court justices Thursday indicated former President Donald Trump is likely to face criminal and civil charges despite his claim of immunity while he was president. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election led to felony charges against him that include... Read More

    April 16, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Divided on Law for Prosecuting Jan. 6 Rioters

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to throw out criminal charges of obstructing an official... Read More

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to throw out criminal charges of obstructing an official proceeding against Jan. 6 defendants, including former President Donald Trump. About 350 persons who invaded the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection have been charged... Read More

    Five Takeaways From the Abortion Pill Case Before US Supreme Court

    WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone,... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for millions of American women and for scores of drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. It's... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top