The U.S. Supreme Court found that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge the 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law that prioritized the arrest and removal of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have recently unlawfully entered the country. (Texas v. Garland, 6/23/23)
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in U.S. v. Texas upholds the prerogative of the executive branch to set guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), allowing the agency to prioritize its work, just like every other local, state, and federal agency does each day.
President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Farshad Owji stated: “Simply put, this 8-1 decision is a clear message. The states that attempted to derail this commonsense approach were in the wrong. SCOTUS upheld our federal system by agreeing that the states in question lacked standing; it was always a bad idea to try and use the courts as a political weapon. Justice wins out today, and this decision means the government will be able to prioritize its limited resources to ensure public safety in a smart and rational manner. Our country needs and deserves an immigration enforcement system that is both effective and humane, and today the highest court in the land affirmed the administration’s right to work toward that goal.”
AILA Executive Director Ben Johnson added, “It boggles the mind that this case even made its way to the Supreme Court. It is heartening that the Justices ruled this strongly against the overreach by states. The Biden administration wasn’t abrogating its responsibilities by implementing priorities, it was establishing guidelines to help law enforcement do its job properly. This 8-1 decision is a clear rebuttal to the states’ attempt to take their political battles to the highest court in the land and run roughshod over the administration’s authority.”
