We have covered this closely, and the Supremes have held that the states lack standing here, to bring complaints against changes in immigration policy, from one president to the next, so long as no one's constitutional rights are being violated. And law enforcement has no constitutional right to force compliance with every law, no matter how trivial. That is not an individual right, of any one law officer.
Immigration is the sole province of the federal Executive Branch. Tipton (as we've long said) should never have heard the case, as he knows he lacks jurisdiction -- since his Louisiana and Texas state plaintiffs here. . . lack standing to sue.
I won't quote any of his 96 pages of. . . dreck (but it is here, in full). I will quote the Biden Administration's opposition, which cites a Sixth Circuit decision -- which came out the opposite way from young Tipton's nonsense. The below will be the center of the Fifth Circuit's (or Supremes') reasoning, thus:
. . .Our main concern with the injunction is that we believe these IIRIRA provisions do not eliminate immigration officials’ “broad discretion” to decide who should face enforcement action in the first place. Arizona, 567 U.S. at 396. They address a separate question: the custodial status of individuals who are facing removal proceedings or who have been removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),(c); § 1231(a)(2). To the extent the injunction prevents the Attorney General from relying on the memos to release those who are facing enforcement actions and fall within the mandatory detention provisions -- for example, prisoners with qualifying convictions against whom ICE has lodged a detainer (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)) or individuals subject to removal orders (id. § 1231(a)(2)) -- we see no basis for upsetting it at this stage as that is what the statutes govern.
The district court’s injunction, however, is not limited to detention decisions of aliens the United States has decided to remove. It is much broader. It enjoins reliance on memos that guide decisions on, among other things, “whether to issue a detainer,” “whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear,” and “whether to stop, question, or arrest a noncitizen.” ICE Memo at 3.
We see the United States likely succeeding on this core foci of the interim enforcement priorities—immigration officials’ ability to prioritize who is subject to investigative and enforcement action in the first place. See Reno, 525 U.S. at 483 (recognizing that law enforcement discretion extends to “initiation or prosecution of various stages in the deportation process,” including the “discretion to abandon the endeavor”). . . .
It is quite telling that neither [Texas or Louisiana] nor the district court have cited a single Supreme Court case requiring law enforcement (state nor federal, criminal nor immigration) to bring charges against an individual or group of individuals. . . .
What is more, in the quarter century that IIRIRA has been on the books, no court at any level previously has held that sections 1226(c)(1) or 1231(a)(2) eliminate immigration officials’ discretion to decide who to arrest or remove. . . . The injunction is STAYED pending appeal in all other respects including the reporting requirements. . . .
On April 12, 2022, the Sixth Circuit granted the governments’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Order, Arizona v. Biden, No. 22-3272 (6th Cir. April 12, 2022) (attached). The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, reasoned (1) that the States likely lacked standing, id. at 5-8; (2) that the September Guidance likely is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it is not final agency action, id. at 9-12; (3) that, even if it were reviewable, Defendants were likely to prevail on the merits because (a) the September Guidance likely is not “contrary to law,” id. at 12-15; (b) the September Guidance likely is not “arbitrary or capricious,” id. at 15-16; and (c) the September Guidance likely was not required to undergo notice-and-comment procedures, id. at 16. For the Court’s convenience, Defendants are attaching a copy of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion to this filing. . . .
Trust that this will be sorted out, on appeal. Young Drew Tipton is just angry. . . that the end-game for his mentor's (Tangerine's) insurrection. . . is at hand. And neither Tipton or Tangerine will ever be elected to federal office, again. So. . . he rages into the night, impotently. Charming.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment