Supreme Court Weighs Reviving Biden Immigration Guidelines
The Supreme Court is considering two different questions in cases involving federal judges who sought to reinstate or revise federal immigration laws in cases involving noncitizens, an unprecedented review by the justices of whether the immigration judge’s reliance on ambiguous and often irrelevant evidence and the immigration statutes themselves to determine whether to reopen an immigration case violated federal law.
In the ruling, the high court is considering the constitutionality of provisions in President Obama’s executive order that allows the administration to return certain individuals to their country of origin who were previously removed from the United States. The Supreme Court will hear the case after a lower court threw out the new law, citing concerns about the effect on noncitizens.
The justices were not alone in reviewing the issue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had already struck down as unconstitutional a separate provision in the executive order that allows for the reopening of convictions for certain crimes only by the president or a person in his or her White House office.
Both sides in the immigration case said the decision involved broad and sweeping questions of constitutional authority and that in part it had to do with political debates about immigrants in the United States, but also touched on immigration policy in the country. Immigration is a heavily partisan issue in the United States, with parties on the left and right of the spectrum sharply dividing over how immigrants should be regulated.
The Supreme Court was split 5-4 between liberals and conservatives in the past when it has examined the issue of whether the administration of immigration laws and guidelines set out by Congress is subject to federal laws or procedures.
In a statement, Justice Elena Kagan said: “The Supreme Court today reaffirms its longstanding commitment to the separation of powers and to the rule of law,” adding that it is a privilege of U.S. citizenship to call on the Court to review a case.
On the other side, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’