While the timing of the release of cases by the Supreme Court is somewhat random, ocassionally, we get several unrelated cases in the same area of law.  This week, out of eight cases released by the Supreme Court, three were somewhat significant immigration cases.

The most favorable for immigrants, and the one most likely to be significant for other areas of law was United States vs. Texas. The basic facts of this case is that the law on immigration mandates that the government pursue “removal” (i.e. deportation) against a wide range of immigrants — both those who unlawfully entered the U.S. (or unlawfully remained after their authorization expired) and those who have engaged in some act which justifies terminating the authorization to remain in the U.S.  The problem is that  (as is true for other areas of criminal and civil law enforcement) enforcing the law takes resources.  You need agents to investigate, attorney to handle the cases on behalf of the U.S., and judges to hear the cases once they are brought. And Congress is only willing to budget for a certain number of agents, attorneys, and immigration judges.  Thus, the enforcement agency (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) has to set priorities.  In setting priorities, it is conceivable that an agency could pursue a “first in” policy in which it pursues all cases in the order in which they come in.  But that creates a never ending backlog in which the most serious cases get delayed.  On the other hand, the government can decide which casses qualify as the “most serious” and let “minor” cases slide.  Every administration for the past fifty years has set (and over the course of the administration adjusted) its own priorities.

In the past, states have typically recognized that federal government decisions are federal government decisions and that the states have no authority to challenge the decisions.  But in recent years, state Attorney Generals have switched from building up their reputation via criminal cases to filing frivolous claims against the federal government.  So today, every decision made by the federal government inevitably results in Attorney Generals of the other party filing a suit on behalf of their state.  And thus, when the Biden Administration implemented its priorities for enforcing immigration law, red state Attorney Generals led by accused felon Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, filed suit claiming that the policy was improperly adopted (claiming that such a directive needed to be adopted through the same process as a formal regulation) and failed to comply with the statutory mandate.  Because this case was filed in federal court in Texas (heard by a very Trumpy judge) and appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the lower courts were more than willing to grant relief to Texas and bar the Biden priorities.  The United States Supreme Court reversed finding that the states lacked “standing” (or in plain English, the right to sue).   Stripped to its essence, the Supreme Court found that, while the failure to more vigorously enforce immigration laws might, in some way, harm the states, finding that the government’s priorities were in some sense wrong would not eliminate the harm.  In short, enforcement priorities are inherently a matter of discretionary decision making by the Executive branch and it would be improper for the courts to interfere with that discretionary authority. Continue Reading...