FederalImmigration & BorderIssuesJudicialBiden Administration’s Limit on Deportations Remains Blocked After U.S. Supreme Court Denies Stay

The Biden administration contends that those who are a public safety threat or meet special criteria should be prioritized for deportation.
July 22, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Biden administration’s request to stay the decision by a federal judge in Texas that blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines to limit deportations to only those it considers especially dangerous to public safety.

Justices granted certiorari but declined to block the lower court’s opinion authored by Judge Drew B. Tipton, who presides in Victoria. Tipton is an appointee of former President Trump.

Tipton decided that a directive by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to limit arrests and deportations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to those deemed a danger to society was illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act among other federal laws.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued earlier this year in another case that it is more prudent to focus the limited funding Congress has appropriated for ICE enforcement on subjects at the greatest risk to commit crimes.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also a Trump appointee, joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissenting against the majority’s decision to deny a stay.

The Texan Tumbler

It is the first vote Jackson has taken since she assumed office on June 30 to replace retired Justice Stephen Breyer. President Biden nominated Jackson and the U.S. Senate confirmed her appointment earlier this year.

The court’s decision is a temporary victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who overwhelmingly won the Republican nomination earlier this year. He faces Democratic challenger Rochelle Garza in November.

Paxton was not as fortunate in his efforts to keep the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy in place. The Supreme Court decided in June that it is legal for the federal government to proceed with ending the program.

The Supreme Court set an oral argument in the appeal for the first week in December. The State of Louisiana also joined Texas in the suit against the federal government.

States that have sued the federal government over its immigration policies contend among other arguments that illegal crossings are costly and burdensome to local resources. In this case, the Department of Justice claimed that this dispute was better suited to be resolved “through the democratic process” than in the courts.


Disclosure: Unlike almost every other media outlet, The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies exclusively on its readers for financial support. If you’d like to become one of the people we’re financially accountable to, click here to subscribe.

Get “KB's Hot Take”

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Hayden Sparks

Hayden Sparks is a senior reporter for The Texan and a lifelong resident of the Lone Star State. He has coached competitive speech and debate and has been involved in politics since a young age. One of Hayden's favorite quotes is by Sam Houston: "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."