The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to review its case seeking to end the Trump-era “Stay in Mexico” policy.
Earlier this month, three Republican-appointed judges for the US 5th Circuit Court dismissed a White House appeal to end the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP), also known as the “Stay in Mexico” policy. , and upheld the lower court’s determination that the policy’s termination under the Biden administration by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was unfair.
Soon after taking office, the Biden administration sought to abolish the MPP, but Texas and Missouri sued in an effort to maintain the policy, calling it a “common sense” approach to asylum law.
Meanwhile, immigration advocates say the MPP violates US law as well as the US’s international obligations to give asylum seekers a safe place to wait until their applications are processed.
The 5th Circuit’s decision was written by Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Oldham, who said DHS’s proposed approach to the policy is “as illogical as it is illegal.”
In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration said the Supreme Court should review the matter because previous rulings against abolishing the MPP were based on “misinterpretation” of federal laws — namely Immigration and Nationality Act and Administrative Procedure Act.
The DOJ noted that the Court of Appeals ruled that the US Code requires DHS to maintain a “stay in Mexico” policy. The DOJ argued that if this is correct, all other administrations — including the Trump administration — had been in violation of federal law since 1997, when the specific section of the code in question went into effect.
The DOJ further argued that the trial court had erred in its decision that the DHS Secretary alejandro mayercassiAlejandro Meyer’s task force warns of 100 children with families torn apart under Trump Five Eyes Nations cyber threats from Apache vulnerability Hillicon Valley – Biden’s misinformation alertThe decision to end the MPP earlier this year had no legal effect. The department said the Meyerkas had done “exactly” what they were supposed to do and that the court of appeal’s decision “ignored fundamental principles of administrative law.”
“In essence, lower courts have ordered DHS to permanently implement and implement the short-lived and controversial MPP program. And they have done so despite the determination of a politically accountable executive branch that the MPP is the key to preventing illegal migration. that the MPP exposes migrants to unacceptable risks; and that the MPP deviates from the executive’s foreign-relations efforts to manage regional migration,” the petition states.