what a window into the warped leftist mindset
kagan:
i believe mpp was instituted by us and it was us who dragged mexico to it kicking and screaming. now, in the warped and weak minds of leftist judges, its mexico that has “leverage”.
all those seeking asylum shall be detained, on a case by case basis, they may be released if its “a significant public benefit” making room for more, the rest may be returned to mexico.
did you read dhs interpretation of what is a “significant public benefit”
But the argument also focused on the bigger picture – and in particular some justices’ concerns about federal courts overstepping their boundaries and interfering in foreign relations and policy decisions by the executive branch.
Roberts asked Stone to address Prelogar’s contention that reinstating MPP would only “send a limited number of people back to Mexico,” while at the same time requiring the U.S. government to coordinate with the Mexican government. “What good,” Roberts asked, “do you think will come from a requirement that the government keep MPP in place?” When Stone responded that it would result in fewer violations of federal immigration law, Roberts shot back, “I think it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the secretary and say that you may want to terminate this, but you have to keep it because it will reduce to a slight extent your violations of the law.”
Stone sought to portray the claims that Texas and Missouri have brought as “garden-variety” claims that the federal government has not complied with the laws governing administrative agencies. But Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying it. It does not, she admonished him, “really seem like a garden-variety” claim “to basically tell the executive how to implement its foreign and immigration policy. And that’s what this does,” she contended. “You’re putting the secretary’s immigration decisions in the hands of Mexico,” because the United States can only comply with the lower courts’ orders if Mexico agrees to cooperate.
Prelogar tried to hammer this point home in her rebuttal, reiterating the “extraordinary nature of the district court’s injunction,” – “particularly,” she said, “with respect to its effects on foreign relations.” Under the district court’s order, she explained, the Biden administration needs “to get Mexico’s consent to operate” MPP, giving the other country “an important point of leverage.” Returning asylum seekers to Mexico under the MPP, she told the justices, requires a “massive cross-border program,” with everything from housing and access to lawyers to security and transportation. “The idea,” she concluded, “that there is a single district court in Texas that is mandating those results … shows that something has powerfully gone awry here. This is not how our constitutional structure is supposed to operate. And this is not the statute that Congress drafted.”
We’ll know by summer whether there are five justices who agree with her.
The above quote is the final portion of the linked article and is the reason why Biden will ultimately prevail. The Supreme Court is traditionally VERY deferential to the Executive Branch when there are any foreign policy implications. They will stick to that deference here and Biden will win.
One 6 to 3 Opinion by the Chief Justice. Neither the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 nor the Affordable Care Act create a private right of action to recover damages for emotional distress.
One per curiam in which an equally divided court with Barrett recused affirms the judgement of the Court of Appeals. This was a railroad liability case and Barrett had joined the majority judgement at the Seventh Circuit, which is why she was recused. Presumably, she would have voted to uphold her own judgement, so the end result is the same.
Monday, May 2nd is the next Opinion day, with orders as well.
