The Supreme Court will hear Texas’ appeal of Biden’s immigration and deportation policies.

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from two Republican state attorneys general on Tuesday.
They argue that the Department of Homeland Security is breaking the law by using its discretion to
deport noncitizens in violation of federal immigration regulations.
Texas and Louisiana's lawsuit is the most recent shot fired by conservative states against the Biden
administration over immigration. These states have even started busing undocumented immigrants
to states with Democratic governors in an effort to stir up controversy.
A September 2021 letter from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, which reversed
efforts by previous President Donald Trump to enhance deportations, set priorities for the arrest,
detention, and deportation of certain non-citizens, is at the center of the conflict.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized in court documents that Congress never
appropriated money to hold everyone, forcing administrations to think about how to allocate their
limited resources.

The Executive nonetheless has the right to concentrate its meager resources on those non-citizens
who are higher priorities for apprehension, she added; especially given perennial restrictions on
detention capacity.
The guidelines advise against creating a clear-cut norm and instead recommend evaluating the totality
of the facts and circumstances. The government specifies aggravating elements, such as the
seriousness of the conduct and the use of a handgun, as well as mitigating criteria, such as the age
of the immigrant, that weigh against taking enforcement action.
The government didn’t have the right to release the memo, according to Texas and Louisiana's legal
representatives, because it violates federal law. They cite the provisions of immigration law that
state that certain immigrants; must be detained or expulsed.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in court documents that the Executive; lacks the
authority to reject that command; because Congress obliged the Executive to act. The
Administrative Procedure Act, a federal statute that controls how an agency can issue regulations,
is another federal law that he claimed the standards violate.
The rules were nationwide stopped by a district court judge. Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump
appointee to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas declared that; the Executive
Branch claims the right to suspend statutory mandates; using the words; discretion and
prioritization. This strategy is not permitted by the law.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in court documents that the Executive lacks the
authority to reject that command; because Congress obliged the Executive to act. The
Administrative Procedure Act, a federal statute that controls how an agency can issue regulations,
is another federal law that he claimed the standards violate.

The rules were nationwide stopped by a district court judge. Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump
appointee to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas declared that the Executive
Branch claims the right to suspend statutory mandates using the words discretion and
prioritisation. This strategy is not permitted by the law. As a result, the Department of
Homeland Security tried to give priority to individuals who are a threat to the security of the
nation, the general public, and the borders.
Prelogar emphasized that the guidelines are not binding orders compelling action, but rather an
attempt to use available resources while leaving ultimate discretion to the judgment of individual
immigration officials, noting that the lower court ruling against the government runs counter to
longstanding practice spanning multiple administrations.
According to Prelogar, the instructions just instruct federal employees on how to enforce federal
law in a sector that the Constitution delegates to the federal government.
She asked the court to reject the challenge as a preliminary matter, claiming that the states lack
standing to do so because they are unable to demonstrate the required actual harm. Prelogar stated
that any state may sue the federal government about almost any policy if the litigation were to
proceed.

Arizona, Montana, and Ohio have also brought legal action against the Biden administration. An
an injunction prohibiting the guidelines was given by a district court judge, but the 6th US Circuit
The Court of Appeals overturned that ruling.
The court determined that Federal legislation grants the National Government extensive control
over immigration policy Additionally, it questioned whether the guidance actually hurt the states.
Paxton claimed before the Supreme Court that the states had the legal authority to file the action
since they are responsible for paying for the non-citizens' health care and educational expenses in
addition to expenditures associated with law enforcement.
The case in question was filed in Texas, according to critics, in order to judge shop a district
the judge selected by Trump who has already granted countrywide injunctions against other
immigration policy.
According to CNN commentator Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law,
So far, Texas has taken the lead in 29 different lawsuits against the Biden administration, on
immigration. Vladeck pointed out that none of those cases had been brought where the Texas
government is based, in Austin, in a friend of the court brief filed against Texas.
The latest front in what has become an all-out campaign by Republican state attorneys general
against practically every Biden-related program, according to Vladeck, is this case.