A panel of judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Joe Biden administration’s deportation priorities, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on aliens who have committed serious crimes and who are dangerous to the public. There are dangers. National and border security of the United States.
The court decided that federal guidance, announced by DHS in late September last year, “can be applied” to those who pose the greatest risk to public safety.
But the order cannot be enforced until the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is known, to which the government turned in June following a ruling issued by a federal district court in southern Texas. , which suspended Biden’s priorities nationally.
Biden’s priorities establish that those who have committed acts of terrorism, espionage or a “serious threat to public safety” will be expelled from the country.
The government’s guidance changed priorities issued in January 2017 by former President Donald Trump, who put 11 million into deportation hotbeds to live in the country without legal authorization.
A Texas court ordered the government to block them after a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Louisiana, both also ruled by Republicans.
In March, a federal judge in Ohio suspended Biden’s deportation policy following a lawsuit filed by Arizona, Ohio and Montana, who argued that its implementation would increase crime and strain law enforcement resources.
The court ruled on that occasion that DHS did not have the authority to modify the laws on the apprehension, detention and deportation of aliens approved by Congress. Therefore, the government’s deportation priorities focused on dangerous aliens or people with serious criminal histories are invalid.
Judge Michael J. Newman did not accept the explanation offered by DHS attorneys and sued the plaintiff states, all three ruled by Republicans, who argued that:
- The preferences were illegal because the executive changed immigration laws, something that belongs only to Congress. This can only be done within the framework of the due legislative process; You
- The priorities were arbitrary and arbitrary because the executive did not heed, nor did it consider the deportation order with the damage done to the states by the presence of criminal aliens who were allowed to remain in the United States because they constituted a Didn’t make removal a priority.
In mid-April, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary decision overturning an Ohio court order that had reversed the government’s deportation priorities.
Now, that same court ruled that plaintiff states cannot prove damages they claimed, and DHS guidance only instructs federal agents on how to enforce a law over which the federal government has considerable authority. .
Chief Circuit Judge Jeff Sutton wrote, the DHS guidelines “do not impose any direct costs on states or threaten the loss of any federal funding.”
disappointed claimant
United Press reported that Emily Cantrell, press secretary to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, said in a statement that “the court’s decision unfortunately allows President Biden to continue with his dangerous immigration policies.”
“The border crisis is having devastating effects in states of Montana and across the country,” Cantrell said. “Attorney General Knudsen will continue to use every tool he has available to help the Biden administration do its job and defend the border,” he said.
Brittany Thomson, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Attorney General’s office, said in a statement that the agency was “disappointed” by the decision.
Biden’s priorities were suspended following a decision by the federal court for the Southern District of Texas, which annulled them on June 10.
Federal Judge Drew Tipton ruled in favor of plaintiffs (Texas and Louisiana), who alleged that the DHS deportation policy announced in September violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“The executive branch can prioritize its resources. But it must do so within the limits set by Congress,” Tipton wrote. “Using the words ‘conscience’ and ‘priority’, the executive branch claims the power to suspend the statutory mandate. The law does not allow this view,” he said.
After a waiting period, on June 26, the government announced that it had accepted the decision and stopped implementing the September memorandum, while appealing the decision before the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Now the question arises as to which rule prevails. “Although the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is ruling in Biden’s favor, the government will have to wait for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision,” says Alex Galvez, an immigration attorney who practices in Los Angeles, California.
“States that make up the Sixth Circuit of Appeals may decide to comply with a court order, but at the national level, the Texas court’s decision prevails,” he said. “In the case of Ohio, which pertains to the Sixth Circuit, the decision of Texas is reserved and prevails.
Galvez also said that “the government will continue to fight in court to defend its relegation policy. He’s already won one, now he awaits the decision of the 5th Circuit. And when there is a discrepancy, he can.” The matter will reach the Supreme Court justice.”
In addition, the decision issued by the Sixth Circuit of Appeals “opens the door, that in any case other circuits have other demands, we already have the ruling in favor of the government issued on Tuesday,” says Jose Guerrero, an immigrant. Lawyer who practices in Miami, Fla.
“And in my opinion, there is a possibility that the 5th Circuit of Appeals will rule in favor of the government, taking into account the decision of the 6th Circuit,” he concluded.
