• News Categories
    ▼
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

T-Room

The Best in Alternative News

  • News Categories
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

April 26, 2022 at 6:38 pm

Tough Questions for Both Sides in Dispute Over “Remain in Mexico” Policy…

Supreme_Court_Art_Lien
ParlerGabTruth Social

by Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in the battle over the Biden administration’s efforts to end one of the Trump administration’s signature immigration policies. The lower courts ordered the Biden administration to reinstate the controversial policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. courts. During nearly two hours of oral argument in Biden v. Texas, the justices appeared torn on whether the Biden administration must maintain the so-called “remain in Mexico” policy, which is formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.

Some justices suggested that the decision to end the policy was inconsistent with federal immigration law, and they expressed doubt that Congress intended to allow the release of large numbers of asylum seekers into the United States. But on the other hand, members of the court – including some conservative justices – challenged the idea that Texas and Missouri could ask a federal court to require the Biden administration to maintain the program, particularly when doing so requires the cooperation of the Mexican government.

Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had opted to end the MPP after determining that the program’s benefits “were outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.” It was, Prelogar stressed, an exercise of “his statutory discretion to make a policy judgment.”

By contrast, Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone emphasized that under federal immigration law, the government has three options for asylum seekers who arrive at the U.S. border. It can decide on a case-by-case basis to temporarily allow them into the United States, it can return them to Mexico or Canada if they have arrived by land, or it can hold them in a U.S. detention center while they wait for a hearing. The Biden administration has to choose one of those options, Stone stressed, and ending MPP would mean that the Biden administration is violating federal law…

ParlerGabTruth Social
Continue Reading
This website lives off the kindness of your donations. If you would like to support The T-Room please visit our PayPal.

Editor’s Picks

States Illegally Issued 194,000 Commercial Driver’s Licenses to Foreign Truckers…

Netanyahu: ‘There will not be a Palestinian state,’ Even at Cost of Ties with Saudis…

Secret CIA Report Boasted About Tricking Congress in JFK Probe, Whistleblower Says…

How Trump’s Own Appointees Aided Russiagate Plot Against Him…

George Soros Gave $250K to British Group Working To Censor Conservative News Sites and ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’…

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

Twitter Icon

View Old Archives

Copyright © 2025 T-Room

Site by Creative Visual Design