In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has determined Texas and Louisiana lack standing to challenge the arrest policy of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The Supreme Court ruling affirmed the executive branch's authority in shaping immigration enforcement priorities, according to a Heritage Foundation release. The decision reinforces the longstanding principle that federal courts do not entertain lawsuits demanding the executive branch to make more arrests or prosecutions.
"We cannot overemphasize the seriousness of the dire public safety consequences posed by the Biden administration's refusal to arrest and deport dangerous criminal aliens," Hans von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, said in the release, expressing concern about the potential risks associated with the DHS arrest policy.
The case centered around the arrest and deportation priorities set forth by the Biden administration in its 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, according to the Supreme Court ruling. The guidelines prioritize the removal of noncitizens suspected of terrorism or serious criminal activities, as well as recent unlawful entrants.
Texas and Louisiana sued the DHS, arguing these guidelines violated federal statutes that require the department to arrest more criminal noncitizens pending their removal, according to the ruling.
"The states essentially want the federal judiciary to order the executive branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests," Justice Brett Kavanaugh, delivering the opinion of the court, said in the ruling. "But this court has long held 'that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.'"
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized the limited role of the judiciary and the separation of powers in the constitutional system. It highlighted that the executive branch has the authority to exercise enforcement discretion and prioritize its enforcement efforts based on resource constraints and evolving public safety needs. The absence of coercive power over the plaintiffs in this case distinguished it from typical standing requirements.
By denying standing to Texas and Louisiana, the court upholds the executive branch's ability to set its own immigration enforcement priorities, according to the ruling. The decision prevents courts from dictating the arrest and prosecution policies of the executive branch, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the separation of powers.
Reacting to the ruling, Pramila Jayapal, the ranking member of the Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, applauded the Supreme Court's decision, according to a release from her office.
"Prosecutorial discretion in enforcement has long-been an essential element of the executive branch's authority," Jayapal said in her release. "With this ruling, the Biden administration and Department of Homeland Security can move forward with commonsense immigration enforcement priorities."
