Trump Admin SCOTUS cases | SCOTUS permits Noem to mass revoke parole
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 102
- Views: 3K
- Politics
- Messages
- 19,846
“… Though the emergency decision from the Supreme Court is not final – the underlying legal case will continue in lower courts – the order will allow the administration to expedite deportations for those who had previously benefited from the program.
… No one disputes that, under federal law, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has broad authority to grant or revoke parole status. The question is whether the department may revoke the status for all migrants immediately with the stroke of a pen, or whether the agency must conduct a case-by-case review of each migrant. Though the two sides dispute the facts, the Biden administration appears to have conducted at least some individual review of each migrant before granting parole.
The Trump administration told the Supreme Court that its decision to terminate parole status for the migrants at issue was one of the “most consequential immigration policy decisions” it has made. Lower court orders temporarily blocking its policy, the administration said, upended “critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core executive branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”…”
——
I don’t think there is much dispute about terminating the program for future and unprocessed applicants. The question is what — if any — individual due process is due to the people in this country in reliance on the parole implemented by the Biden Administration.
Here, SCOTUS has not ruled on the merits, but apparently decided the greater harm as between the parties is to the government in not being able to mass deport paroled immigrants versus the individuals who will be deported while the legal wrangling works its way through the courts.
… No one disputes that, under federal law, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has broad authority to grant or revoke parole status. The question is whether the department may revoke the status for all migrants immediately with the stroke of a pen, or whether the agency must conduct a case-by-case review of each migrant. Though the two sides dispute the facts, the Biden administration appears to have conducted at least some individual review of each migrant before granting parole.
The Trump administration told the Supreme Court that its decision to terminate parole status for the migrants at issue was one of the “most consequential immigration policy decisions” it has made. Lower court orders temporarily blocking its policy, the administration said, upended “critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core executive branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”…”
——
I don’t think there is much dispute about terminating the program for future and unprocessed applicants. The question is what — if any — individual due process is due to the people in this country in reliance on the parole implemented by the Biden Administration.
Here, SCOTUS has not ruled on the merits, but apparently decided the greater harm as between the parties is to the government in not being able to mass deport paroled immigrants versus the individuals who will be deported while the legal wrangling works its way through the courts.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 7,668
This has been a consistent theme when granting the stays. The Supreme Court seems to be under the impression that the inability to enforce a just-passed law or regulation is an irreparable injury, despite the fact that the law or regulation have not existed before and we got alone just fine. Meanwhile, being deported is just kinda, you know, one of life's obstacles.
I had been somewhat optimistic about the court coming around after the habeus rulings. Well, that's not true. I was hopeful. No longer. It's clear the Justices have developed a new technology of fascism. Obviously, they are reluctant to, you know, be actual fascists, as they would when ruling on the merits in many of these cases. But why be a fascist when you can just let the fascists do whatever they want while mulling over the legal arguments? Obviously, by the time the mass parole case is decided on the merits . . . well, there won't be a case any more because the whole class will have been deported. So the court gave Trump what he wanted, without having to do so in writing.
It's interesting to note the contrast between this case and the student borrower case.
1. In the student loan case, there was a bullshit lawsuit brought in Texas that the Supreme Court ultimately tossed out because they had accomplished what they wanted in the Biden v. Nebraska case. But note that the district court declined to stay its injunction, meaning that the student loan repayment could not go forward. The 5th Circuit upheld that, and so did the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted cert before judgment to weigh in on the matter. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the loan forgiveness program was blocked.
The asserted government injury was the same. Biden campaigned on giving student debt relief; Trump campaigned on deportation. The enjoining of the policy implementation was deemed to be an irreparable injury in only one of the two cases. I guess student loan borrowers can just go fuck themselves.
2. In the student loan case, the government wanted to use a statute that authorized student loan modification to modify student loans. Nowhere in the statute does it specify that the modifications have to be case-by-case, but the Supreme Court read that into the statute. Congress would not have given the president such power, they reasoned, and a clear statement of congressional intent would be required. So student loan borrowers -- go fuck yourselves.
But here, the majority is apparently just fine with modifying parole terms in bulk, even though the relevant statute expressly states that it cannot be done that way:
The Secretary of Homeland Security may . . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit . . . , but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody
Every single reference in this statute is to "the alien." The parole can only be prescribed on a case by case basis; and when the purpose that parole -- i.e. case by case -- has been lifted, the parole can be revoked for THE ALIEN. Not aliens. THE ALIEN.
Did the majority worry about the major questions doctrine? Apparently not. Did it worry that Congress had not intended to give so much power to the president, as evidenced by the lack of clear statement? Nope.
3. In other words, this decision and Biden v. Nebraska cannot be reconciled. They are in direct opposition. But we knew that already, right? The Six don't really try to appear consistent. They just do what they want to do -- which is to say, they are not jurists.
But just in case anyone is wondering, the Supreme Court told student loan borrowers to drop dead (to invoke a famous newspaper headline), that their concerns are meaningless, and the attempt to give them relief was not an important government injury. But whitey racists who want to deport hundreds of thousands of people? THEIR interests matter.