Supreme Court Weighs Reviving Biden Immigration Guidelines
The Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments for a case that would restore President Barack Obama’s immigration reform policy by reestablishing in effect a law the court has twice struck down.
The case, Arizona v. United States, comes at a time when the government has begun to enforce some of the 2010 program’s provisions. In the case decided Friday, the court said it wants to revisit the Obama program’s guidelines, which set out what immigrants can and cannot bring into the United States.
The justices left in place two federal rules, already on the books by executive action, that effectively require migrants to comply with a far narrower interpretation of the program.
The justices raised the stakes by saying they wanted to put into place a new “loose-cannon” standard for immigration officials to enforce.
The court, however, left in place existing guidance for how the agency would enforce the law. It also said it would allow the government to continue to enforce the law, but it would no longer require that its policies be followed.
The decision is a challenge to the Obama policy of trying to reduce the number of young people and families coming to the United States from Central America.
The court did not decide how broad the new standards will be, though the court could change them before the next case.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday during the government’s appeal of a federal ruling that the program had a legal basis but it was too broad in setting out what immigrants could bring to the United States.
The case, Arizona v. United States, is a challenge to the Obama administration’s program of enforcing its immigration laws, commonly known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for people aged 15 or younger who came to the United States before the age of 16 and met other requirements.
President Obama introduced the program in 2012 after the White House learned that President Obama had signed a program allowing temporary protected status for people fleeing war and persecution in their home country.
Arizona officials sued the federal government, saying the program was unconstitutional because it