Shocking decision on immigration enforcement stuns GOP-led states.

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to GOP-led states challenging the Biden administration’s immigration policies. The court’s decision, with an 8-1 majority, determined that the states lacked standing to challenge the narrowing of federal immigration enforcement.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the majority opinion, called the lawsuit an “extraordinarily unusual” case. He pointed out that the states were essentially asking the federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies and make more arrests, a request that goes against established legal precedent. Kavanaugh emphasized that the states failed to provide any precedent to support their claims.

The case involved the Department of Homeland Security’s issuance of new enforcement guidelines. Initially, the department sought to impose a 30-day moratorium on all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations.

However, revised guidelines were subsequently issued, limiting ICE agents to targeting three specific categories of illegal immigrants: recent border crossers, threats to public safety, and national security threats.

The rationale behind the revised guidelines was to focus enforcement resources more efficiently and use discretion in targeting individuals for arrest and deportation. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated that the enforcement actions should not be solely based on an individual’s status as a removable noncitizen. The department believed that a more targeted approach was necessary for the sake of justice and the well-being of the country.

Critics, however, viewed these guidelines as a part of a broader rollback of immigration enforcement and border security. They argued that the implementation of the new priorities coincided with a significant decrease in ICE deportations.

Data showed that between October 2020 and October 2021, only a fraction of the arrests and deportations occurred after the revised guidelines came into effect.

The states of Texas and Louisiana challenged the legality of these guidelines, asserting that they would bear the burden of increased law enforcement costs and strain on social services due to the rise in illegal immigration. While a district court initially granted them standing and blocked the policy’s implementation, the Supreme Court ultimately disagreed.

The majority opinion concluded that the states’ injuries were not “legally and judicially cognizable” and that federal courts did not have authority to redress them.

Justice Samuel Alito stood as the lone dissenter in this ruling, sharply criticizing his colleagues for brushing aside relevant precedent and disregarding factual findings made by the district court. He accused the majority of an erroneous interpretation of executive authority and argued that the states should have standing to challenge the policy.

With this ruling, the Biden administration has secured a significant legal victory on the immigration front. However, it is likely that further challenges to the administration’s immigration policies will arise in the future, including the contentious “Parole with Conditions” policy. As the immigration debate continues, the Supreme Court’s role in shaping the nation’s immigration landscape remains crucial.

Source Fox News