The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a lawsuit brought by five Republican attorneys general who wanted states to take over defense of the asylum ban introduced by the Biden administration last year.
Immigrant rights groups have opposed the ban restricting asylum crossings at the Southwest border since it was introduced in May 2023, and the federal government said it would not be effective after pandemic-era Title 42 restrictions were lifted. argued that the rule was essential for border security.
In February, while the ban was still pending, the Biden administration changed tactics and entered a settlement process with the group, raising concerns among Republican states.
The group, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, argues that state intervention is necessary because the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department are “abdicating responsibility” for illegal immigration, and they want to intervene and uphold the rules. I wanted the right to
Chinese migrants wait for processing after crossing the border with Mexico near Jacumba Hot Springs, California, on May 8. President Joe Biden’s efforts to restrict southwestern border crossings are facing legal challenges… A Chinese man crosses the border with Mexico and awaits processing near Jacumba Hot Springs, California, on May 8. human immigrants. President Joe Biden’s efforts to restrict border crossings in the Southwest are facing legal challenges from immigrant rights groups and later from Republican attorneys general. Detailed AP Photo/Ryan Sun, File
A Ninth Circuit judge then halted the case (Kansas v. Mayorkas) in May 2024, arguing that it “does not have a significant protective interest in upholding the law.” [Legal Pathways] This rule is intended to reduce immigration to the United States. ”
The statement stems from the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in the Arizona case and echoes other decisions around the country that upheld the federal government’s authority over immigration and border security.
Nevertheless, Republican-led states have repeatedly attempted in recent years to implement their own immigration laws, whether near or near the southwest border, but have been blocked by lower courts. There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will hear the case in a much different manner than before. Until over ten years ago.
Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and West Virginia filed suit with the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of overturning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, but the court decided Monday that it would not hear the case. refused.
The decision was welcomed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the groups challenging the asylum ban.
“We are pleased that the court denied review,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, told Barron’s in a statement. “States cannot intervene in litigation if they politically disagree with federal immigration policy.”
The May 2023 ban would not go into effect without alternative measures, and in June 2024, President Joe Biden introduced an executive order severely restricting border crossings.
The ACLU and other groups are also suing over the de facto ban, which limits crossings to 1,500 per day. Encounters must remain below that line for 28 consecutive days to restart entry.
Recent statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that the number of apprehensions at the border has declined in recent months and remains well below the number of apprehensions at most points in 2022 and 2023.
Newsweek requested comment via email Tuesday afternoon from the Department of Homeland Security and the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.
