Group of State AGs Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Full ‘Remain in Mexico’ Reinstatement
A group of nineteen state attorneys general asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s order instructing the Biden administration to fully reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
The attorneys general, led by Indiana, filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Texas and Missouri against the Biden administration, Just the News reports.
“No one is above the law in America, and we are simply insisting that the Biden administration follow the law,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said.
“The rule of law is the framework that enables American liberty to survive and thrive,” he added. “The situation at our southern border provides the perfect example of how going soft on the rule of law gives rise to anarchy, chaos, and ultimately the erosion of our freedom and safety.”
Indeed, in January of 2021, Biden announced he was terminating the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Just months later, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas took steps to dismantle it, along with other immigration policies.
Following a mass surge of illegal immigrants at the southern border, Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit.
District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas granted their request for a permanent injunction and ordered the administration to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy. He ruled the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it halted it.
“From the beginning of this Administration, the United States has been forthright about its intention to terminate MPP simply because it did not like the program, and its conduct demonstrates its readiness to do anything — including ignore the APA’s requirements — to accomplish that objective,” the attorneys general argue in the brief.
“The Administration’s ‘act now, justify later’ approach began on Inauguration Day, when it summarily paused MPP,” they add.
Throughout the appeals process, “the Fifth Circuit correctly concluded that the United States’ efforts to avoid judicial review violated basic principles of procedure,” they argue.