Race-based admissions, refusal to celebrate gay weddings: 4 important Supreme Court decisions to watch
United States v. Texas
Last November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States of America et al v. State of Texas and State of Louisiana, which centered on guidelines issued in 2021 by the Department of Homeland Security regarding immigration law.
DHS issued the Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law in September 2021, which, among other things, curbs the extent to which detention can be used on those who enter the country illegally.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
“It is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable noncitizens in the United States,” stated the guidelines.
“We do not have the resources to apprehend and seek the removal of every one of these noncitizens. Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement action.”
DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in a statement released in November 2021 that the guidelines ensured “that our workforce is empowered to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and focus its enforcement efforts on those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security.”
“In making our enforcement decisions, we will focus our efforts on the greatest threats while also recognizing that the majority of undocumented noncitizens, who have been here for many years and who have contributed positively to our country’s well-being, are not priorities for removal,” Mayorkas added.
Texas and Louisiana sued the government over the guidelines, arguing among other things that the guidelines violated federal detention mandates created by Congress.
Last June, United States District Judge Drew B. Tipton sided with the states, arguing that “this case is about a rule that binds Department of Homeland Security officials in a generalized, prospective manner-all in contravention of Congress's detention mandate.”
“It is also true that the Executive Branch may prioritize its resources. But it must do so within the bounds set by Congress. Whatever the outer limits of its authority, the Executive Branch does not have the authority to change the law,” wrote Tipton.
“Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization,’ the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates. The law does not sanction this approach. Accepting the Executive Branch's position would have profound consequences for the separation of powers.”
