No surprise from the now partisan court that does exactly what the GOP complained about before: legislating from the bench.

It’s only going to get worse.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

>“The current border crisis is not a COVID crisis,” Gorsuch wrote. “And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson, in one of her first decisions as a SCOTUS Justice, signed onto Gorsuch's objection. The other two non-far right Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, opposed without comment.

This is interesting from KBJ, IMO. I personally am a strong supporter of the Living Constitution theory, but her signing onto Gorsuch's dissent here makes it appear as if she is less firm on it than I would like.

Naturally the standard chorus of chucklefucks has no reasoning behind their motion. Of the 3 page decision, 2 pages are comprised of Gorsuch explaining exactly why this is a bullshit order, then accusing the chucklefucks of legislating from the bench.

The states do not have standing to compel the federal government to argue harder in court (whatever the fuck they think the feds could say to make keeping an emergency order permanently is another story), nor is there a reasonable argument that the Circuit Court does not have the authority to rule such orders unconstitutional.

This stay is a gift to Republicans, and an embarrassment for the court.

[deleted]

I can't wait for nobody to actually understand the issues involved here.

This is a policy instituted by the executive. They have directly said that even if SCOTUS allowed the stay, they would not discontinue it immediately.

At the exact same time as the Biden admin request SCOTUS to stay it, they also made a request for additional time to be added to it so that they could prepare to wind it down over a significantly long period of time, all of which indicates that this is not something that the admin would just "cancel" if SCOTUS put in a stay or allowed the lower courts' rulings to stand.

What SCOTUS did say on the 20th is that in order for it to be repealed, they needed much more information from the Biden admin on what would replace it (something they have planned to do for over a year), which the admin was not prepared to provide at that point in time.

The Biden admin wanted to end the policy on May 23rd. This ruling changes nothing, but this sub will throw a fit over it.

All of this indicates that while the admin does not want 42 to stay in place (which it shouldn't, it's a terrible policy), they were also woefully unprepared for how bad the situation actually is, and therefore that their replacement plans need to be reworked to fit this reality.

I'm sure this will get downvoted because it contains actual nuance.

Clearly this is policy and not law. What would happen if Biden just ignored it?

[removed]

[removed]

I appreciate the nuanced take and this info is great.

That said, fuck the Supreme Court for applying the standard of "we can't repeal this as it would cause chaos" in this, and only this instance. They're more than willing to throw a bomb into every other situation when it suits their ideological leanings, consequences be damned.

Nobody will understand because as soon as they click the link to read it they hit a pay wall.

[deleted]

I do not understand how this Supreme Court arbitrarily decides which policies the executive branch can carry out and which they can’t. This is such clear partisan hypocrisy on their part. If a Republican politician puts in place a policy, a Democratic president cannot cease to use it unless the court signs off? This isn’t just legislating from the bench, it’s exercising Executive/Presidential power from it. Effectively six Supreme Court justices have all but replaced the president.

Biden must be so relieved

Judicial Coup continues.

[removed]

[removed]

I agree that this is a really complex problem, and the policy definitely needs to be sunset in a rational and controlled way. But I am still wondering under what authority the SCOTUS is acting to extend it indefinitely.

[removed]

From that snippet, I don’t think Gorsuch’s objection or arguments to keep title 42 has much to do with Living Constitution theory. I’m also a bit more sympathetic to Gorsuch’s objection here just from a good governance standpoint.

The thing I find interesting about this case, compared to the student loan issue is, in this case, is that the Biden Administration is claiming the pandemic is essentially over, while the republicans are arguing that the pandemic still poses a threat and that is why Title 42 should remain in effect. However, in the student loan case...the current administration is arguing that the impact of the pandemic still affects borrowers and that's why relief is warranted, however, republican plaintiffs are arguing that the pandemic is over and relief is not justified or legal on these grounds...

Well obviously it would be left to Clarence Thomas specifically to secure the border.

Biden doesn't have a solution because the Executive Branch is not the problem. The fundamental problem is that are immigration laws are woefully outdated and completely incompatible with this current situation. The specific immediate problem is that the legal system put in place to lawfully manage this issue is so overburdened that a non eligible asylum seeker can stay in the country for years before their cases are adjudicated. That means that even if they are ultimately rejected, they can still work here to take money back home for months.

I actually do have a solution. The US should militarize the issue. Now, I'm not talking about troops or border walls. What we should do is draft all the lawyers into the Coast Guard and set up a special court system to process claims. Assign some as judges and advocates for each side and wind down the backlog. Of course this will never happen because wealthy and powerful people in our society will never be forced into service unlike the rest of us who they will happily push out in front of machine guns to die for our country.

Even if we don't go with the draft, the ultimate solution must come from Congress.

[deleted]

> Biden doesn’t have a solution because the Executive Branch is not the problem.

You can say that about damn near every issue in our country lmao

>they were also woefully unprepared for how bad the situation actually is, and therefore that their replacement plans need to be reworked to fit this reality.

This is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and your entire comment ignores the legal problems with this ruling, and the court in general. Title 42 requires HEALTH emergency, such as COVID. Extra migrants is NOT a health emergency. Thus Title 42 should be revoked.

That the alternatives are all subpar and unideal doesn't matter; Gorsuch is right: as a matter of law, if the executive wants to end a policy set forth by the executive, then the courts have no place to intervene. It's a clear abuse of the separation of powers, and the court is proclaiming itself the de facto executive.

Yeah it doesn’t make sense unless the debate is being consciously shifted in concert to disabuse both sides from their viewpoints while exchanging them for more congenial views that include maintaining the status quo.

[removed]

His argument is framed from a textualist POV. Looking at the constitution, and law in general, from that framing is troubling for a constructivist such as myself. Not as bad as originalism, but it is still troubling that KBJ signed onto it, and IMO is a message that she will avoid rocking the boat.

I ultimately agree with Gorsuch, don't get me wrong. However, I dislike the avenues he took to arrive at our shared conclusion.

Bruh you’re so dramatic. I read today a meat magnate died. That was free so is it fake?

Thank you! I was scrolling to see if anyone on any similar threads would mention it. You are the first one I found so far. I am afraid they (scotus) will decide the " health emergency" is over by the time they get to the student loan forgiveness. 😬 ...because who can tell them they can't?

Those are arguments that will be made at the appropriate time. SCOTUS didn't decide that, they only decided if they should stay its enforcement while those arguments happen. Considering the administration has nothing to replace it with, and doesn't plan to replace it anytime soon, theres no reason for a stay since the stay would have little to no effect.

Genuine question: How many people felt the exact same way when the Supreme Court said that Trump couldn't end DACA, which was itself an executive policy they said he couldn't end?

Realistically, they probably are. For one, they aren’t really prepared to handle the increase of border crossings once Title 42 is revoked, they’ve been preparing for it, but they may have gotten ahead of themselves by removing it. Second, the administration was slow to remove it in the first place. It was well into Biden’s presidency and after a lot of political pushback by his own party that they went through the motions to begin cancelling it. And when they did, they didn’t go through the process as described by the APA. This is similar to Trump taking a long time to cancel DACA and then when he did, he did so improperly. Some may attribute it to ineptitude, but it’s not. The administrations know what they’re doing when they purposefully violate the APA to keep a policy going. It’s politically touchy for them to cancel such policies so they take the longest way possible.

[deleted]

This appears in every single aspect of U.S. politics today. It's a level of tribalism that is just fucking bizarre.

Yeah that person was dramatic. However, they have a point too.

Fox is free. Afaik there's literally nothing paid. They're misinformation personified as a corporate entity.

You want nuance? You pay for it. Which means most people take what's free, hence all the bullshit.

As far as the "fell out a window"..... There's no hidden info, there's no spin. He got pushed out a window. It's a fucking Russian assassin's cliche by now.

This post has a nuanced problem. My personal opinion is that it's easy to reduce problems without a full fix. But it doesn't matter, because most people can't read it and go by gut reaction.

Well that decision also served conservative interests. Businesses wouldn’t lose workers, GOP politicians didn’t have to pass any reforms and Trump didn’t have to deport a ton of Dreamers, which would have been terrible press. I’m sure Trump was elated he didn’t have to carry out that campaign promise.

[removed]

Good Journalists deserve to get paid, which means good journalism should be paid for. This makes it harder to access, unfortunately, which means bad journalism will spread misinformation/propaganda farther. Journalism doesn't jive well with a capitalist model. We should support publicly funded news medias more.

Fun idea, ruined by humans.

You think "oh lawyers will be fair" but we thought that about cops too and we know how that worked out. Oh well use people "on both sides" but it's awfully easy to fool that.

It's a hard problem. I don't have the answer either, but it's hard to be worse than the current system without going straight up evil.

That changes nothing about what I said. If anything public funded news should get funding from Dems. Sure, it's going to hurt them sometimes, but most of the time it won't. Also, does subscriptions mean it's public funded? I don't think so but I'm no expert.

[removed]

The last thing the democrats want is to be plausibly held responsible for a flood of illegal immigrants. This is ‘Murika and it’s less than two years until the presidential election.

[removed]

[removed]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just sharing an opinion on the topic. If anything, I think our opinions were aligned.

[removed]

[removed]

But these asylum seekers and following the law by going to the checkpoints. Title 42 is causing these asylum seekers to build up on the Mexican border but this is most likely causing these people to seek illegal means to get into the country.

[removed]

[removed]

Why the coast guard? Not every border is water.

[deleted]

I think the eviction moratoriums are a little different in the sense that you have different levels of government. With title 42 and student loan debt relief, you see contradictory arguments from the same level.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

You could argue that even if you agreed with the outcome, it set a precedent for more meddling. But that’s actually an invalid argument because the Supreme Court doesn’t care about precedent and is just seeing how much it can get away with regardless.

Just needed a military branch.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

> if the executive wants to end a policy set forth by the executive, then the courts have no place to intervene. It's a clear abuse of the separation of powers, and the court is proclaiming itself the de facto executive.

This is not accurate. The power that the executive is exercising comes from Congress (Title 42 of United States Code) and is subject to modification by other acts of Congress. This is exactly why we have courts - to settle matters of interpretation among statutes when the executive exceeds its authority or fails to fulfill another obligation that is mandated because of how its authority is used.

I'm not saying this particular decision is right, only that in general many acts of the executive branch are only possible because of delegation of authority by the legislative and we need the judicial to sort out when things go wrong.

I do agree with Judge Sullivan that Title 42 expulsions violate the Administrative Procedures Act. There are other less burdensome ways to protect the public health. We don't require masking or COVID testing for citizens who return from abroad, including the countries where immigrants originate. It is an abuse of authority to summarily deport those immigrants under the guise of protecting public health in this case.

Click on the link and mash the Esc button. You may need to do that in a private window.

Schrodinger's pandemic.

yeah but that ruling was mostly because Trump and his admin are incompetent boobs and f8cked up procedure not because of any attempt to protect DACA. if they had done the right leg work, DACA would be gone

As far as I'm concerned, there are two fundamentally different issues at stake. There is no doubt that people are still feeling the economic impact of COVID and that the student loan payment pause is helping to mitigate this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is a mass influx of COVID cases being brought into America by people entering the US at the southern border. And there never was. It makes sense to keep the payment pause in effect while opening the border to asylum seekers. It's not that hard to differentiate the two issues.

[deleted]

COVID can still be declared a national emergency without completely shutting down the border. Title 42 is an overly extreme measure that has no scientific basis whatsoever. If there is no evidence of an uptick in COVID cases brought into the US by asylum seekers, the fact that we have a COVID emergency has no bearing at all.

Keep the COVID emergency in place and reopen the border to asylum seekers.

As soon as Congress DOES THEIR F%#@^NG JOB and creates actual legislation surrounding the immigration issues, the courts are free to make their own interpretations.

I am not against immigration but I think the whole "asylum" issue is a joke and that 90% plus of people coming in the southern border are simple economic migrants that will never qualify for asylum, and so I am glad Title 42 was extended. And to pretend that the courts and/or legislature actually spell out the real reason for their decision is beyond naive.

but if Congress did its job, Republicans would have one less thing to fear monger about during election cycles. the GOP will never let that happen since their fear of non-whites, education, being nice to people are like 90% of their platform

It's not the same argument with contradictory stances. It's different responses to the same crisis because they address different aspects of that crisis. You can't argue that all responses to the pandemic should end because we've adequately addressed the problem in one specific arena.

[removed]

I'm not sure how I feel about the case as a whole but the discent does make a valid point that emergency actions should be tied to the emergency and not indefinitely. Seeing how the pause of student loans is due to COVID, the discent seem to have backed them selves into a corner where student loan pause would be tied to title 42 ending. If there is no health emergency, then both would have to end; if there is a health emergency, then both would have to stay.

I think boths sides are wrong. If there is a an emergency, then both have to stay. Should not be picking emergecies when it benefits you and ignoring them when they don't.

> Keep the COVID emergency in place and reopen the border to asylum seekers.

And on a personal level, I’m fine with that, but that’s not the argument the administration is using.

[deleted]

And, there are several Republican governors who have not released or set a timetable for lifting COVID emergency powers.

At the beginning of the pandemic, Republicans were screaming it was fake and just the flu. Comrade Joe has declared the pandemic over and the Republicans just can't accept it.

[removed]

[removed]

So this is gonna secure the border just like it did under trump?

Here's the entire section of Title 42 pertaining to the case:

>§265. "Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases >Whenever the Surgeon General determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose." (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §362, 58 Stat. 704.)

If you can show me where that rests on any sort of emergency declaration, you'll convince me. Until then, you can drop the bullshit you're spouting.

Fair enough, I deleted my prior response...I was under the impression that HHS needed a state of emergency to have the power delegated to them. Regardless....I think it's a little disingenuous for each party to argue out of both sides of their mouth when talking about the state of Covid.

[removed]

[removed]

Nah. If Republicans think title42 is still necessary then they should also believe in the lingering economic impact of the pandemic.

It's easy to understand how old mandates might no longer be necessary but the effects of the cause for those mandates are still being felt.

The issues are fundamentally different.

One refers to the impact that the pandemic had and how it is still lingering.

The others are mandates to reduce the potential spread of said pandemic in the moment.

One is cause and effect the other is limiting the cause.

The Biden admin is now requiring anyone traveling from China to have a negative COVID test so clearly it is still a concern of theirs that people from other counrries could be spreading it here. It is quite literally impossible to require that for people illegally crossing the border so Title 42 would be a great option for an administration supposedly concerned with the spread of COVID. Due to the tribal stupidity I mentioned in my initial comment, they have boxed themselves into not being able to implement any type of immigration restrictions so despite it being wise policy, and despite them being fully aware that it is wise policy, they have to be against Title 42.

Yeah but that mandate is completely different from title 42 which covers land borders and is specifically for air trips from China a country where we know the virus is seeing a resurgence AND is known for their disinformation.

With that said the restriction mandates all air trips from China require a negative covid test. If the test is passed then it's business as usual similar to the immediate post pandemic mandates.

Title 42 gives the authority to expel migrants without any exception in the interest of public health. Dropping it back to title 8 like the Biden Admin wants isn't going to see any spike in Covid as immigrants will still be tested when they invoke asylum seeking privileges.

And this does nothing about illegal immigration anyways.