Supreme Court dismisses Republican challenge to immigration rules


HR King
May 29, 2001
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an attempt by Republican-led states to defend a Trump-era immigration policy that made it harder for immigrants to obtain green cards, which has been abandoned by the Biden administration.

In a one-sentence order, the court dismissed the case spearheaded by the state of Arizona as “improvidently granted.” That means that after oral arguments in the case in February, the justices decided they should not have gotten involved in the first place.
Supreme Court questions Biden administration's actions on immigration rule
But in an unusual concurring opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. accused the Biden administration of apparent gamesmanship in abandoning the rule after lower courts ruled against it. He raised questions — shared by other justices when the court heard oral arguments in the case — about whether the administration was skirting the legal requirements that apply when a presidential administration vacates a policy of its predecessor.

The administration’s “maneuvers” could be seen as an attempt to avoid judicial review of whether “the Government’s actions, all told, comport with the principles of administrative law,” Roberts wrote.
He said a “mare’s nest” of procedural problems stood in the way of the court making such a decision, however, and his words read more like a warning for the future. It was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch.
The court still must rule before the end of the term on another Biden administration case involving immigration. It involves lower-court decisions that have kept the administration from ending a Trump-imposed “remain in Mexico” requirement that keeps asylum seekers along the southern border outside the United States while their cases are decided.
Biden administration tells justices it should be able to end 'remain-in-Mexico' rule
Wednesday’s case was about President Donald Trump’s “public charge” rule, approved in 2019, which denied green cards to immigrants if they had relied too much on social welfare programs such as food stamps. It was in effect about a year, but courts across the country judged it at odds with federal immigration law, and a district judge in Illinois in November 2020 said it could not be implemented nationwide.

Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher told the Supreme Court in oral argument that the Biden administration agreed with lower courts and that the rule was ineffective, as well. “We know that it affected only about five of the approximately 50,000 adjustment-of-status applications to which it was applied,” Fletcher said.
The Biden administration acquiesced to the Illinois judge’s decision and moved to dismiss the remaining cases around the country. That left states that favored the public charge rule without recourse, and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) tried to intervene on behalf of other Republican-led states.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which covers the West, turned him down for a number of reasons.

The substance of the rule was not before the Supreme Court, and Roberts noted that the decision of the Illinois judge was still being appealed. He said the court’s action in the Arizona case “should not be taken as reflective of a view” on the procedural issues, “or on the appropriate resolution of other litigation, pending or future, related to the 2019 Public Charge Rule, its repeal, or its replacement by a new rule.”



HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
Yeah, this case was a true train wreck full of procedural/jurisdictional issues and the DIG was the proper disposition. That said, the concurrence to the per curiam suggests at least four justices had a serious problem with the agency's process from an apa perspective.

BTW, today's opinions, while not sexy, should temper people's belief that the court is all political, and should reinforce people's belief (if they still have it) that each of the justices do in fact try to give their best views of the cases. Just look at the combinations of justices in the majorities: AHA - unanimous; George - Barrett/Roberts/Thomas/Alito/Kagan/Kavanaugh; Golan - unanimous; Viking River - Alito/Breyer/Soto/Kagan/Gorsuch (with concurrences by CJ/Kav/Barrett); Ysleta del Sur - Gorsuch/Breyer/Soto/Kagan/Barrett. (Also note who’s in the majority every time — kagan).
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman


HR Legend
Jul 3, 2003
Let’s just keep bussing them to DC and NYC… the melt downs they’re having are delicious.

Latest posts