Skip to main content

Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy is at the Supreme Court. Here’s what is at stake.


This week the Supreme Court will hear a case that could entrench the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces people seeking asylum to await their court dates in dangerous conditions in Mexico. The Remain in Mexico Policy, misleadingly dubbed the “Migrant Protection Protocols” created a humanitarian disaster at the border and has been the subject of ACLU lawsuits since it was first implemented in 2019.

President Biden made a campaign promise to end Remain in Mexico, recognizing the grave harm it subjects people seeking asylum to. Biden followed through on his promise and terminated the policy. But Texas and Missouri sued, and a federal Texas district court judge ordered the federal government to restart the program.

The Biden administration has tried multiple times to end the policy, including by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the order on an emergency basis – a move the ACLU supported in an amicus brief – but the Court declined to do so. The Biden administration has been forced to resume the policy while litigation continues.

Biden v. Trump has now made its way up to the Supreme Court to be heard on the merits. Here is what’s at stake.

The ability of a president to undo the policies of a former administration

The lower court decision under review by the Supreme Court would effectively keep the Trump administration’s shameful Remain in Mexico policy in place indefinitely, even though the policy did not exist under multiple administrations (including the Trump Administration before 2019).

This decision is contrary to a fundamental principle of a democracy: A new administration, selected by the people, should be empowered to reject its predecessor’s policies and adopt those it believes are in the public interest. The government is, of course, constrained by statutes, including the requirement to provide reasoning for its policy decisions. But by upending the normal rules that govern agency decisions and unjustifiably locking in Trump’s policy, the lower court overstepped its role as a neutral enforcer of the rules.

The anti-democratic implications of that holding are deeply troubling, and the Supreme Court must reject it.

Whether the government is required to detain all asylum seekers

In ordering the Biden administration to resume the Remain in Mexico policy, the lower courts held that immigration law limits the federal government to only two options when people seek asylum at the border: detain them or forcibly return them to Mexico before their hearing. Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks capacity to detain all people seeking asylum, the judge reasoned that the only choice would be to send them to Mexico while their cases proceed.

This is a patently false choice. Congress has stipulated that DHS has broad power to avoid unnecessarily detaining people and to release people to their networks of care while their immigration cases proceed. In fact, all presidential administrations have exercised broad discretion to release people rather than restricting DHS to two binary choices – including the Trump administration itself.

The lives of asylum seekers

Most importantly, at stake is whether the U.S. will continue to be a country that allows people fleeing persecution to seek safety inside its borders. Remain in Mexico – and other related policies, like Title 42, which has shut down access to asylum at the southern border for over two years under the guise of public health – are attempts to dismantle longstanding U.S. asylum policy that uphold our commitment to international human rights norms.

During the two years the policy was in effect under Trump, Human Rights First documented over 1,540 reported cases of kindnappings, murder, torture, rape, and other forms of violence against asylum seekers returned to Mexico. U.S. and Mexican authorities have failed to establish adequate housing options or to provide access to medical care and work, leaving people vulnerable to transnational cartels who prey on migrants — particularly those who are Black or LGBTQ+.

If the Supreme Court prevents the Biden administration from ending Remain in Mexico, it will enshrine a new legacy for the United States – a legacy of turning its back on international commitments and sending people directly into harm’s way.

What you can do:
Shut Down the ICE Detention Machine
Send your message

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Impact of Social Media on Teenagers

It is important to understand the impact of social media on teenagers to provide them with the necessary support and guidance. The influence of social media on teenagers can be both positive and negative. On the positive side, social media can help foster connections and build communities among teens. It can provide them with access to valuable information, knowledge, and opportunities for creativity and intellectual stimulation. Moreover, social media platforms allow teenagers to connect with their peers and find support, especially during times of social isolation or distance. However, there are several concerning aspects of social media's impact on teenagers. One significant concern is the prevalence of cyberbullying on social media platforms, which can cause psychological harm and lead to anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts among victims. The constant access to real-time updates can make teens feel like they need to compete with the carefully curated and filter...

New video by T-Series on YouTube

ROCKSTAR: Tum Ho 8K Video Song | Ranbir Kapoor | Nargis | A.R. Rahman, Mohit Chauhan, Kavita Presenting the Iconic Love Song in 8K "Tum Ho" from the movie Rockstar. Starring Ranbir Kapoor and Nargis Fakhri. Sung by Mohit Chauhan and Kavita Krishnamurthy, composed by A. R. Rahman & written by Irshad Kamil. #Rockstar #TumHo #RanbirKapoor #ARRahman #MohitChauhan #NargisFakhri Credits: Song~ Tum Ho Movie~ Rockstar Starcast~ Ranbir Kapoor, Nargis Fakhri Singer~ Mohit Chauhan, Kavita Krishnamurthy Music ~ A.R. Rahman Lyrics ~ Irshad Kamil Music on ~ T-Series Download Desibeats - https://bit.ly/4bEaNcJ Download Tapbeats - https://bit.ly/4bY3hcZ ___________________________________ Enjoy & stay connected with us! 👉 Subscribe to T-Series: https://youtube.com/tseries 👉 Like us on Facebook: https://ift.tt/19ATH4E 👉 Follow us on X: https://twitter.com/tseries 👉 Follow us on Instagram: https://ift.tt/TrLcJkD 👉 Follow us on Snapchat: https://ift.tt/aVv2OH3 View on YouTube