Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
Judy: The supreme court heard a
case two that could have broad
implications for how the
nation's immigration laws are
enforced.
John yang is here with more on
the days arguments.
John: Two states, Texas and
Louisiana, are challenging the
Biden administration's
guidelines on who of the 11
million people in the country
illegally should be prioritized
for deportation.
Here is our resident supreme
court watcher, Marcia Coyle, the
correspondent for the national
law journal in the courtroom
today, and Teresa cardinal
brown, managing director for
immigration and cross-border
policy at the bipartisan policy
center.
To reset, what is the difference
that Texas and Louisiana are
complaining about?
The difference between what the
immigration law says and what
the Biden administration
guidelines say?
Teresa: President Biden, when he
came in, asked the secretary of
review the prioritization of who
immigration officials should go
after to arrest for deportation
in the United States.
President Obama had similar
guidelines.
President trump withdrew them
and president Biden issued new
ones.
They issued a memorandum that is
an exercise of prosecutorial
discretion which is that we
don't have the resources to
arrest everybody who is
undocumented in the united
States and deport them, so we
want to tell our people how to
prioritize.
What Texas and Arizona said is
that immigration law does not
give you that authority.
If they are undocumented, you
shall put them in removal
proceedings, so some of the
debate is "Does shall mean Sha
ll or might?"
John:john: There the words of
the immigration law and reality.
Chief justice John Roberts.
>> Assuming we think it would be
if not impossible, surprising
and very difficult for the
executive, T comply, --
executive to comply, shouldn't
we take that into account? There
are cases where we said shall
may mean may.
>> The court has said that in
the broader context is really
about the discretion that
federal agencies have in order
to go after violations of not
just immigration but any federal
agency that is enforcing a law
tries to prioritize who they
will go after based on the
resources they have, the
seriousness of the violation so
this case is being watched
closely not only for immigration
but for what the court may say
about that type of discretion.
John: Teresa, what are the
constraints?
Why would area out the letter of
immigration?
Marcia: The estimates are --
Teresa: The estimates are 11
million undocumented
people.
There are cases waiting to
decide.
Ice, the agency charged with
arresting people and putting
them in proceedings, only has a
few thousand agents for the
entire country so it is
impossible for them to find and
arrest 11 million people.
Or even put them in detention
because congress has not
allocated sufficient resources
to detain them until they can
decide whether or not they can
be put into proceedings.
Judy: Another issue that came up
in the arguments today was the
question of whether or not Texas
and Louisiana have the right to
bring this case, what is called
standing.
They are arguing that the
administration's guidelines may
require them to spend more on
things like education, law
enforcement, social services,
but justice Kagan questioned
that.
Marcia: -- >> It is just not
enough that you are coming in
here with a set of speculative
possibilities about your costs.
You have to do more than that
given the backdrop of what has
become I think a system that
nobody ever thought would occur
which is that the states can go
into court at the drop of
opinion and stop federal
policies in their tracks.
John: What is the significance
of this not only in this case
but the broader outlook?
Marcia: She was telegraphing
that she does not think the
states have standing because the
costs that they say they are
incurring or would incur are
just too speculative and ashy
pointed out in that clip later,
it would only take a dollar with
some judges before they would
just knock down a government
policy and any state could come
in on any policy at any time
with speculative costs, but she
was also making a point about
what has happened.
It is not just republican-led
states.
It's democratic led states as
well that when they don't like a
policy -- a government policy --
they will go into court and
offer these types of costs in
order to get standing to bring
their lawsuits, and then she
said they find a judge that
might be sympathetic because
they know where to file these
cases and that judge on the
basis of a dollar of cost could
bring a government policy to a
dead halt, and that is something
that I think she and others on
the court are very concerned
about.
John: Teresa, what about that
argument? What are the burdens
or the costs on the states of
these writing guidelines?
-- Biden guidelines?
Teresa: There is not a
differentiation between the
overall cost to the state for
immigrants living in the state
and will add additional cost
implementation of these
guidelines might make.
Immigrants in a state that are
undocumented may be paying taxes
but their kids may be in school,
they may have health care costs
at those states have to bear.
That is the case with any state
that has immigrants in it.
If you are trying to
differentiate what is the cost
of this particular policy, then
trying to guess how many
additional immigrants might be
in any given state, I think that
is really hard today.
John: There was a lot of
discussion about what this judge
in Texas dated when the case
originally came to him.
He wiped out the guidelines
entirely.
Marcia: He did.
You usually think when judges
are faced with cases like this,
he might issue an injunction
which basically, you know,
blocks it.
May be a nationwide injunction,
but it still allows the case to
go forward on appeal, even if
the government cannot continue
to implement it.
This particular judge used
something called -- he vacated
the whole policy.
It did not exist.
And the government, united
States, says you cannot do that.
That is not the kind of remedy
that the law allows, so there
was a lot of discussion that we
have talked about before, the
administered of procedure act,
the rules of the road for
federal agencies when they enact
new policies or change them.
And whether that act allows
federal judges to wipe out a
government policy instead of
just blocking it pending an
appeal.
But the court is going to do
with that, I don't know.
The chief justice called it a
radical argument because judges
are used to using the vacatur,
but I think the government has
given them some food for
thought.
John: Thank you very much.
>> High pleasure.