Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

Show NLP summaries collection recirc on article pages

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Narrative of Trump snoozing in court takes hold — much to his annoyance

Of course Trump intertwined the Trump Organization into his presidency

Trump might not go to jail, but this trial is a close second

The case for eating at Italian gas stations

Cruise ship drags dead whale into New York, prompting investigation

5 big travel lessons from an accomplished conservationist

Nats win opener at Fenway behind Patrick Corbin and a lockdown bullpen

Jayden Daniels makes Commanders debut at rookie minicamp: ‘He’s a stud’

To get outs with his fastball, Trevor Williams put his ego aside

Kristi Noem’s dog killing is pure Southern gothic

Claire Messud turns her family’s history into a masterpiece

Joseph Epstein, conservative provocateur, tells his life story in full

I used to dismiss my mom’s advice. Then I found a note she wrote before she died.  

Photos of his mom at lunch are a balm people didn’t know they needed

Dog hit by car loses leg, is adopted by firefighter who helped her

Malaysia’s appetite for oil and gas puts it on collision course with China

Horse’s rooftop rescue gives flood-hit Brazil ‘something we could root for’

Russia unleashes new attacks on Ukraine’s Kharkiv border region

Courtroom photo ban adds to hurdles for Trump trial journalists

Israel’s shameful ban on Al Jazeera

Checks, not sex, and other takeaways from Trump’s New York hush money trial

Bishop vanished. His species can still be saved.

In photos: Extreme solar storm brings spectacular northern lights

What actually happens within your lawn when you don’t mow it

Google’s new ‘Find My’ device network is useful but a stalking risk

Apple apologizes for iPad ad after blowback 

Hack targeting hospital chain Ascension is impacting patient care

The urgent air defense lessons of April 16 

Are smartphones destroying childhood? It’s complicated.

In the campaign against Donald Trump, do the ends justify the means?

Miss Manners: Journalist posts on social media about a typo at another outlet

Carolyn Hax: Why is he trying to sabotage his partner’s very public success?

Ask Amy: What do I say about my former walking buddy who yelled at me?

US-POLITICS-BIDEN

See more coverage in your recommendations

Get the weekly Campaign Moment newsletter

Set alerts for major election developments

Election 2024

The Campaign Moment newsletter

Politics alerts

Salwan Georges

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the Biden administration on a controversial immigration policy, saying it had the authority to reverse a Trump-era initiative that requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are reviewed in U.S. courts.

Lower courts had gone too far in requiring President Biden to keep in place policies that intruded on his ability to carry out the nation’s immigration procedures and foreign policy, wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. It was a rare win for the administration at the Supreme Court this term, and for the court’s liberal members who found themselves in the majority.

The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf" target=_blank>vote was 5 to 4</a>, with Roberts writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, plus Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan from the left.

‘Remain in Mexico’ is back under Biden, with little resemblance to the Trump version

At issue were the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) put in place by the Trump administration. Better known as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/04/biden-mpp-mexico/" target=_blank>the “Remain in Mexico” policy</a>, it requires some asylum seekers who enter the country, mainly from Central and South America, to return to Mexico while they await a hearing.<b> </b>President Donald Trump said the program was necessary to curb what his administration characterized as a flood of meritless asylum claims by migrants seeking to be released into the United States.

The justices had expedited review of Biden’s attempt to get rid of the policy after a lower court judge said that the administration had not provided sufficient justification for ending it and that its procedures were unlawful.

Roberts said federal immigration law gives the executive discretion: He may return asylum seekers to Mexico, but is not required to do so.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. Barrett said she agreed with much of the majority’s reasoning, but thought that the court should not have decided the case and should have remanded it to lower courts.

Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion that this means six justices agreed on the merits, and said the court can only do so much to restore order in an immigration crisis brought about by a “stalemate” between Congress and the White House.

“The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But this Court has authority to address only the legal issues before us.”

Biden faces influx of migrants at the border amid calls to lift limits that aided expulsions

Alito, writing for himself, Thomas and Gorsuch, said the Department of Homeland Security should not be free to “simply release into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way.”

Judy Rabinovitz, special counsel with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, praised the ruling.

“The Supreme Court was right to reject the spurious argument that this cruel policy is statutorily required,” she said in a statement.

“While, as noted in the decision, the case will return to the district court, the Biden administration can and should move forward swiftly to finally terminate ‘remain in Mexico’ for good — a result that has been long, and unjustly, delayed.”

Shortly after taking office in January 2021, Biden said the administration would not continue enrolling migrants in the MPP and ordered a review. He and immigration rights groups said the policy was subjecting asylum seekers to dangerous conditions such as rape and torture, and complicating their legal proceedings in the United States. The program’s benefits, the Biden administration said, were “outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.”

But U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas ruled that the Biden administration did not adequately explain its reasons for canceling the policy and that its new procedures violated federal immigration law. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld his decision and the Supreme Court last summer refused the administration’s request to intervene. Instead, it scheduled an expedited hearing.

Supreme Court weighs Biden attempt to rescind Trump immigration policy

Roberts said the decision centered on the immigration law’s language that “In the case of an alien … who is arriving on land … from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Homeland Security secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding.”

Republican-led states who wanted “Remain in Mexico” to stay in place persuaded lower courts that if the United States does not have the capacity to detain all asylum seekers until their hearing — and all agree no administration has ever been able to do that — that section of the law mandates sending the immigrants back to another country.

“The problem is that the statute does not say anything like that,” Roberts wrote. “The statute says ‘may.’ And ‘may’ does not just suggest discretion, it ‘<i>clearly</i> connotes’ it,” referring to a previous court ruling.

Roberts noted that since the law was written 26 years ago, “every Presidential administration has interpreted” the section as “purely discretionary.”

The chief justice said the “foreign affairs consequences of mandating the exercise of contiguous-territory return likewise confirm” that lower courts had misread the law.

MPP applies exclusively to non-Mexican nationals, who must be returned to Mexico, Roberts noted. The lower courts “force the Executive to the bargaining table with Mexico, over a policy that both countries wish to terminate, and to supervise its continuing negotiations with Mexico to ensure that they are conducted ‘in good faith,’ ” Roberts wrote. “That stark consequence confirms our conclusion that Congress did not intend [the law] to tie the hands of the Executive in this manner.”

Roberts additionally said the lower courts were wrong to reject a Department of Homeland Security memorandum detailing the reasons for ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy as an after-the-fact rationalization of Biden’s instinct to end the program. In returning the case to the district judge, he said it should be evaluated anew as justification for ending the program.

Alito said he agreed with Barrett that the court should have vacated the judgments of the lower courts and sent it back for a new look.

But he also said the majority’s “analysis of the merits is seriously flawed.”

“The majority errs in holding that the [law] does not really mean what it says when it commands that the aliens in question ‘shall’ be detained pending removal or asylum proceedings unless they are either returned to Mexico or paroled on a case-by-case basis,” Alito wrote. “According to the majority, it is fine for DHS simply to release these aliens en masse and allow them to disappear.”

Alito also disputed that the lower courts’ reading of the law would too severely limit the president’s power to conduct foreign policy.

“The President has vital power in the field of foreign affairs, so does Congress, and the President does not have the authority to override immigration laws enacted by Congress,” he wrote.

After the lower courts’ decisions, the Biden administration restarted the program. While federal law requires the government to detain all noncitizens who enter the U.S. illegally, Congress has never provided sufficient funding to do so. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security processed more than 671,000 people along the southern border but had funding to detain only about 34,000 nationwide.

University of Florida

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

Robert Barnes

Supreme Court clears Biden to end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

the-washington-post

Border 

Staff Photojournalist

The Washington Post

Biden administration

The Fix

The 202s

Polling

Democracy in America

Balance of Power Pair

U.S. House Aggregate

U.S. Senate Aggregate