WASHINGTON – Supreme Court heard the arguments Wednesday in a tangled debate over whether Republican-led states can intervene to defend Trump-era immigration policies that the Biden administration has abandoned. The policy, which is a revision of the “community fee” rule, has imposed a new test on the wealth of green card applicants.
Some judges questioned the Biden administration’s legal maneuvering, suggesting it was aggressive, obscene and half way too smart.
“It’s really a case for collusion,” Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr. said of the administration’s strategy, which included passing a court ruling against the policy and resisting states’ attempts to intervene to argue their favor.
Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. spoke sarcastically about what happened.
“I congratulate everyone in the Department of Justice or the Executive who developed this strategy and was able to implement it with military precision,” he said, adding, “I don’t know of a precedent where a new administration would do anything.” like this”.
Other judges have said that new presidential administrations routinely change course and that states are trying to get in the wrong court anyway.
“In many ways, it is not unprecedented,” said Judge Brett M. Cavanaugh, “when the government accepts an unfavorable decision that nullifies a rule. It’s not unprecedented at all.”
Judge Elena Kagan has questioned the convoluted judicial strategy being followed by states seeking to revive the Trump administration’s policies. It was, she said, a “quadruple shot at the bank,” which apparently included an attempt to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in the hope of overturning the decision of the federal trial court in Illinois. that the states could file a new lawsuit in federal court in Washington.
Helen H. Hong, a lawyer for the Democratic-led states and localities who first challenged the policy, said that “There’s nothing the Ninth District can do to restore the rule.”
Policy in question revised “community fee” rulewhich allows officials to deny permanent legal status, also known as a green card, immigrants who may need government assistance. In the past, only substantial and permanent cash assistance or long-term institutionalization was considered, and less than 1 percent of applicants were disqualified for reasons of public liability.
The Trump administration’s revised rule expanded the criteria to include “in-kind benefits that provide for basic needs such as housing or food” used for any 12 months within a 36-month period. The use of two types of benefits within one month counts as two months, and so on.
The policy has been contested in lawsuits across the country and has been blocked by several federal judges. But in January 2020, by 5 votes to 4, the Supreme Court revived politics while the appeals moved forward.
Since President Biden took office last year, his administration has decided not to defend the policy in court. At the request of the administration, the Supreme Court dismissed a separate appeal to the judges, and lower federal courts took similar action.
Based on a nationwide Illinois federal court ruling against the policy and without following due process, the administration then reversed the policy. (Since started the process release your version.)
Critics called the administration’s move a legal game to ensure that there was no final decision on the legitimacy of the old policy.
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, urged judges to take what he called an “unprecedented legal maneuver,” adding that “the rule has saved states collectively over a billion dollars a year.”
But Brian H. Fletcher, a federal government lawyer, said only a handful of people have been denied green cards under the policy. “During the year the 2019 rule was in effect,” he said, “we know that it affected only about five of the approximately 50,000 status adjustment applications to which it was applied, or about one hundredth of a percent. “.
The arguments in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, no. 20-1775, followed the Supreme Court’s decision. announcement last week that he will decide whether the Biden administration can end the Trump-era immigration program that forces asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to wait for approval in Mexico.