The Supreme Court Orders Biden to Reinstate and Enforce Trump's Very Successful "Remain in Mexico" Policy;
Also Blasts Biden's Illegal Eviction Moratorium Policy

Even presidential orders must follow the procedures and satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Biden, being a leftist and therefore a totalitarian, could not satisfy those requirements so he just ordered the cancellation of Trump's remain in Mexico policy lawlessly.

That policy says that migrants coming from Central and South America who attempt to claim asylum by crossing the Mexican border must remain in Mexico -- not in the US -- while their asylum request is processed.

So: This ends catch-and-release. You don't get to work in America for the year or more it takes to process your claim, and then just disappear into the shadows when (if) it's refused.

The Open Borders lobby therefore hates this policy.

And Biden therefore cancelled it.

First a district judge ruled that he had violated the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA) in cancelling Trump's order.

Then a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously ruled that he'd violated the APA and ordered him to reinstate the policy.

Biden sought an emergency stay of that order, which would have allowed him to continue lawlessly ignoring the remain in Mexico rule.

The Supreme Court rejected that demand for a stay, 6-3. Even the liberal Chief Justice Roberts was on board for this one.

Now, this is not a ruling on the merits, which has yet to take place. But one requirement for getting a stay (an injunction) is establishing that you will prevail on the ultimate merits when the full appeal has been had.

The Supreme Court seems to think that Biden will not prevail on the ultimate merits.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied President Joe Biden's bid to rescind an immigration policy implemented by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico awaiting U.S. hearings.

...

The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump.

The brief order by the justices means that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling now goes into effect.

States most affected by Biden's return to the catch-and-release open borders position were the litigants in this case, stating, correctly, that Biden's policy encouraged illegals to break the law and to therefore inflict harm on them (the states).

MPP [the remain in Mexico policy] was established and expanded in 2019 by the Trump administration and involved sending migrants back to Mexico, rather than being released into the U.S., as their asylum proceedings were heard.

The policy, in cooperation with Mexico, resulted in court tents being set up along the border in places like Laredo, Texas, where migrants could briefly enter for their hearings before going back to Mexico.

The Trump administration argued that the policy ended "catch-and-release" -- by which migrants were released into the U.S. -- which it saw as a major pull factor drawing migrants north. Critics said the policy was cruel and led to migrants being put in danger in camps across the border.

The Biden administration promised to end the policy and began processing migrants enrolled in MPP into the U.S. shortly after entering office. In June, it formally halted the program.

Missouri and Texas sued the administration claiming that ending the policy was both illegal in the way that it was done, and that it harmed both border states and states deeper in the interior by encouraging migrants and therefore fueling the crisis at the southern border.

The lawsuit claimed some of the migrants released would commit crimes in their states, that it would lead to an increase in human trafficking, and that it would lead to higher costs for the states in areas like education and healthcare.

The ruling found that the termination of MPP "has contributed to the current border surge" and that DHS counsel had conceded as much. The judge also noted the increase in border apprehensions from fewer than 80,000 in January to about 173,000 in April when the lawsuit was filed. In July, there were more than 212,000 encounters at the border.

As for the eviction moratorium:The Supreme Court not only terminated it, but they did so while criticizing Biden's lawless decision as nearly dictatorial. (Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.)

The case has been thoroughly briefed before us-- twice. And careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.

...

Indeed, the Government's read of §361(a) would give the CDC a breathtaking amount of authority. It is hard to see what measures this interpretation would place outside the CDC's reach, and the Government has identified no limit in s.361(a) beyond the requirement that the CDC deem a measure "necessary." ... Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable? Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work?

This claim of expansive authority under s361(a) is unprecedented. Since that provision's enactment in 1944, no regulation premised on it has even begun to approach the size or scope of the eviction moratorium. And it is further amplified by the CDC's decision to impose criminal penalties of up to a $250,000 fine and one year in jail on those who violate the moratorium.... Section 361(a) is a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.

Note that some norms have been restored here, but by Trump's Supreme Court nominees.

Biden -- the candidate propagandized for by NeverTrump -- attempted to destroy all previous norms.

Also Blasts Biden's Illegal Eviction Moratorium Policy&bodytext=Even presidential orders must follow the procedures and satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Biden, being a leftist and therefore a totalitarian, could not satisfy those requirements so he just ordered the cancellation of Trump's remain in Mexico...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 01:30 PM

| Access Comments