Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Scotus allows Texas to continue to patrol international border with Mexico

Texas border security


This:

23A814 United States v. Texas (03/19/2024)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 23A814 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY No. 23A815 LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER, ET AL. v. STEVEN MCCRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY [March 19, 2024] The applications to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court are denied. The orders heretofore entered by JUSTICE ALITO are vacated. JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in denial of applications to vacate stay. If the Fifth Circuit had issued a stay pending appeal, this Court would apply the four-factor test set forth in Nken v. Holder—including, as relevant in this Court, an assessment of certworthiness—to decide whether to vacate it. 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Does 1–3 v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (BARRETT, J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ). But the Fifth Circuit has not entered a stay pending appeal. Instead, in an exercise of its docket management authority, it issued a temporary administrative stay and deferred the stay motion to a merits panel, which is considering it in conjunction with Texas’s challenge to the District Court’s injunction of S. B. 4.
****** 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins, dissenting from denial of applications to vacate stay. Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement. Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. That law upends the federal state balance of power that has existed for over a century, in which the National Government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of noncitizens. The District Court here declared that Texas’s law amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by the federal courts since the Civil War.” 2024 WL 861526, *1 (WD Tex., Feb. 29, 2024). 

No comments:

Post a Comment