The New York Times Might Regret Publishing That Column on Sexual Abuse in...
The Four Horsemen of the New Antisemitism
Here's Why a Disabled Woman Is Suing the City of Portland
Gavin Newsom's 'Press Office' Responds to Inmate Tablet Scandal
Mike Johnson Warns That 'Little Mamdanis' Want to Build a Socialist Utopia in...
'Unprecedented Threat:' Routine Maintenance Found an IED at an Alabama Dam
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Just Sued the State Over Its...
Karen Bass Has Another Welfare Scheme That's a Kick in the Teeth for...
Gavin Newsom's About to Announce His Final California Budget Proposal, and It's Going...
How Did Memorial Drive Shooter Got Gun in Heavily Regulated Massachusetts?
Fox News Got Firsthand Experience With China's Surveillance State. Here's What Happened.
Here's Why Marco Rubio Has Long Been a Proponent of NATO and Why...
Democrats Are on the Wrong Side of History With AI: Fetterman Rips Into...
Gavin Newsom Spent $189 Million for CA Prisoners to Watch Adult Content and...
Karen Bass Can’t Handle Spencer Pratt’s Brutal AI Campaign Ads
Tipsheet

Judge Deals Blow to Biden's Effort to End 'Remain in Mexico'

Judge Deals Blow to Biden's Effort to End 'Remain in Mexico'
AP Photo/Eric Gay

A federal judge has blocked the Biden administration from ending the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” amid legal challenges. 

The policy requires asylum seekers to be sent to Mexico while they await proceedings in their cases, rather than detaining them or releasing them into the interior. President Biden has fought to end the policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, since he took office. 

Advertisement

Texas and Missouri took legal action to prevent Biden from ending the policy, delaying its repeal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that Biden could end the policy and did not violate federal immigration law in trying to rescind it. 

But the Supreme Court also returned the case to lower courts for additional proceedings, tasking U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk with determining whether the administration’s action was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 

Kacsmaryk ruled that the plaintiff in this case, Texas, met all requirements for a preliminary injunction to be issued: a likelihood to succeed on the merits of its argument, a likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities tipping in its favor and the public interest being in favor. 

Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by former President Trump, found that the memo that the Biden administration issued in October 2021 failed to adequately include several considerations, including “key benefits” of the policy like the reduction of asylum claims without merit. He said in his ruling that the government also did not consider states’ costs and reliance interests in federal immigration policy. (The Hill)

Advertisement

The ruling comes as border crossings are surging ahead of Title 42's end next week on Dec. 21, which allowed border officials to quickly turn back asylum-seekers and migrants on public health grounds due to the pandemic. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement