Supreme Court Rules Biden Administration Can End Trump-Era ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy | Eastern NC Now

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in Biden v. Texas that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols — a Trump-era immigration policy also known as “Remain in Mexico.”

ENCNow
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Tim Meads.

    On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in Biden v. Texas that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols - a Trump-era immigration policy also known as "Remain in Mexico."

    "The Supreme Court ALLOWS the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as 'remain in Mexico,'" SCOTUS Blog tweeted. "Red states argued that Biden was obliged to keep the policy, but SCOTUS says in a 5-4 ruling that the administration can end it."

    In 2021, President Joe Biden ordered an end to MPP, which required asylum seekers and other migrants who arrived at the U.S. southern border to remain in Mexico while they awaited their immigration trial. The states of Missouri and Texas sued, arguing that the Biden administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Per order of the court, the Biden administration reinstated Remain in Mexico last December.

    In October, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new order ending Trump's signature immigration policy, and "sought expedited review as to whether federal immigration law requires it to maintain the policy and whether the October decision to end the policy has any legal effect," Oyez, a legal database, noted.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayer, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

    "...the Government's rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action," Roberts wrote. "We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA."
Go Back

HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

The North Carolina House unanimously passed the “Dominique Moody Safety Act,” advancing a child-welfare reform package named for the six-year-old girl whose death exposed repeated failures by Mecklenburg County social services officials to act on reports of abuse and neglect.
Maybe a holiday for Texas, but NOT the nation
government agencies refused to help on fear of being called "racist"

HbAD1

targets data centers and intermittent electricity sources

HbAD2

5 year sentence for failing to cooperate with surveillance of cit citizens
"He is fully fit to carry out all duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State."
illegal alien "asylum seeker" migrants are a crime wave on both sides of the Atlantic
she was actually 86, and says she did not vote in the 51 elections records show

HbAD3

 
 
Back to Top