The U.S. 5th Circuit Court vehemently rejected the Biden administration’s appeal to allow an end to the Trump-era “Stay in Mexico” border management policy, bringing the Supreme Court’s fight closer .
A 5th Circuit panel on Monday upheld a lower court’s ruling that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) improperly terminated “Remain in Mexico,” also known by its formal name, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). .
The ruling by three Republican-appointed judges is the latest in a fight in which GOP-controlled states have sued the Biden administration for pursuing a border control policy they say is a “common sense” approach. “for the implementation of the law on asylum.
DHS under Biden has sought to end the policy, which immigrant advocates say violates US law and the federal government’s international obligations to give asylum seekers a safe place to wait while their claims are processed. .
The 5th Circuit ruling, written by Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Oldham, drew immediate criticism from immigration advocates for its unorthodox style and final conclusions.
“The ruling was authored by Judge Oldham, whose sheer contempt for the Biden administration oozes off the page at almost every moment,” US Immigration Council political advocate Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote in a tweet. .
Oldham rejected DHS’s request to end a lower court injunction that kept the MPP in place, saying “the approach proposed by DHS is as illegal as it is illogical.”
“DHS claims the power to enact a massive policy reversal – affecting billions of dollars and countless people – simply by typing up a new Word document and posting it on the Internet. No congressional input, no regulatory process ordinary and no judicial review,” Oldham wrote.
“We review and reject each of the government’s reviewability arguments and determine that DHS falls far short of meeting its heavy burden to show that it can legislate in a vacuum,” he added.
The 5th Circuit’s decision means DHS must continue to implement the MPP, a program that has become a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-
MPP was one of the former President TrumpDonald TrumpOhio GOP Senate candidates tout MAGA’s good faith during debate Trump’s former personal assistant appears before January 6 panel GOP sounds alarm over Greitens allegations MOREsignature border management programs, for which he negotiated with Mexico while threatening unilateral tariffs.
The original agreement called for Mexico to agree to receive Central American migrants who had previously crossed the border or attempted to enter the United States between ports of entry to seek asylum. These migrants were sent back to Mexico, where they often camped in refugee camps that sprung up along the border, while US immigration courts processed their asylum claims.
Migrant advocates have argued that the process violates the rights of asylum seekers by placing them in unnecessarily dangerous conditions; the Trump administration said it could not house all asylum seekers and claimed that migrants released in the United States with court dates would disappear.
Historically, asylum seekers have been allowed to wait out their case in the United States, a policy derided by immigration advocates as “catch and release”.
Oldham based his decision in part on whether asylum seekers might be waiting for their cases in the United States, saying “DHS does not detain aliens that Congress has instructed it to detain.”
And Oldham rejected DHS’s argument that the lower court case was moot because it dealt with the original DHS memo rescinding the June 1 MPP, even though the DHS secretary Alexander MayorkasAlejandro Mayorkas 42nd anniversary title marks headache for Biden, standoff with lawmakers Exclusive: Two Black Caucus members call on DHS to stop deportations to Haiti wrote a new memo on October 29, rescinding the original memo and expanding on the arguments for ending the MPP.
Oldham chastised DHS for arguing that his later rating could justify the case.
“It doesn’t matter that a case is moot only when the controversy between the parties is dead and gone, and the controversy between those parties is not dead and gone. It doesn’t matter that the new memoranda simply reaffirmed the termination decision that the states had And never mind that the mootness of government theory would allow an administrative body to permanently avoid judicial review by issuing an endless litany of new memos to “reflect” on every adverse judicial decision “Oldham wrote.
Yet DHS pledged to continue implementing the MPP “in good faith” after further negotiations with Mexico, in which the Mexican government agreed to receive nationals from countries other than MPP d origin, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Under the new MPP, which the Biden administration has said it will still fight to overturn, asylum seekers have gained expanded access to legal protections, though advocates say those protections are not enough .
Since the initial injunction prohibiting DHS from terminating the MPP, 86 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the program, according to a CNN report.