Texas sheriffs ask Supreme Court to hear immigration case in lower courts
McALLEN, Texas (border report) – A group of Texas sheriffs have asked the US Supreme Court to hear their case against the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement methods directly – bypassing lower courts – citing a ruling by was stating that only the High Court can issue injunctions relating to immigration enforcement policies.
The legal strategy is new, and legal analysts tell Border Report they doubt it will work.
The seven Texas sheriffs along with the Federal Police Foundation and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers Division asked the Supreme Court on Monday to consider their claims in their case against the President. Joe Biden, Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and directors of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The sheriffs’ lawsuit was originally filed in October 2021 in the Southern District of the Texas Galveston Division.
The plaintiffs include Texas sheriffs from Edwards, McMullen, Live Oak, Real and Galveston counties, as well as the border counties of Kinney and Hudspeth.
Their 53-page lawsuit wants the court to force the Biden administration to end immigration enforcement changes that were implemented after Donald Trump’s departure, including the end of the program Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) commonly referred to as “Remain in Mexico”. They are also calling for an injunction that would allow the immediate detention of all migrants crossing the southwestern border without legal documents.
They are calling on the High Court to step in immediately and waive the lower courts – at district and appellate level – citing a June ruling in Biden v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s memorandum terminating the MPP, as the agency’s legal final action pursuant to federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sheriffs are testing the theory that no other lower court can issue injunctions against certain immigration policies by asking the High Court to allow this case to skip the legal line, so to speak, adviser Aaron Reichlin-Melnick politics at Nonprofit American Immigration Counciltold Border Report on Tuesday.
“It’s a cutting-edge legal request,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “It’s like trying out this new theory.”
“They say, ‘OK you’re putting us in a bind this spring with your decision on the case, ‘Stay in Mexico’, now we want to go straight to you,’ skip the district court, skip the appeals court and go straight to (the Supreme Court),” he said.
On On Tuesday, Reichlin-Melnick tweeted the case is “a fascinating (but probably unsuccessful) request to intervene”.
Reichlin-Melnick told Border Report he doubts the High Court will accede to the request because the Sheriffs’ case and the MPP case have subtle differences, and he thinks the High Court will require the case to be fully vetted by lower judges before taking it. on.
“It’s a different enough scenario that the Supreme Court will probably reject them,” he said.