Texas filed a lawsuit to prevent President Joe Biden’s pause in many deportations, claiming that the Department of Homeland Security violated the terms of an unusual agreement with the previous government that guaranteed the state a chance to weigh in on immigration policies.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit on Friday.
“I told @DHSgov and @JoeBiden last night to end their deportation freeze, which is unconstitutional, illegal and bad for Texas and the nation. They didn’t move. Therefore, #Texas is taking them to court, ”said the attorney general’s office on Twitter.
In December and January, DHS signed agreements with several jurisdictions, including the state of Arizona, Indiana, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas, which appeared to be an effort to prevent the Biden government’s goals of halting deportations and prioritizing immigration prisons. only for those with a serious criminal record and to increase the possibilities of asylum.
The agreements, which raised questions about their legality, pose a potential challenge for the Biden government as it proceeds with promised reforms and overhaul of the immigration system after four years of restrictive policies instituted by former President Donald Trump.
The memos stated that DHS should provide notifications about changes to immigration policy and allow jurisdictions six months to review and submit comments before the agency moves forward with any of the proposed changes, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.
On January 20, the Biden government paused the deportations of many undocumented immigrants who received final removal orders. The memo states that the 100-day break applies to all non-citizens with final deportation orders, except those who were involved in a suspected act of terrorism, people who were not in the United States before November 1, 2020, or those who voluntarily agreed to waive any right to remain in the USA.
Paxton is trying to block the moratorium on the grounds that its immediate implementation violates the agreement the state signed with DHS, along with alleged violations of federal immigration and administrative law.
“DHS issued the January 20 Memorandum without following the notification and consultation requirements contained in the Agreement,” says the Paxton case. “The January 20 Memorandum is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law” and “without observing the procedures required by law”.
Legal experts questioned the nature of the agreements.
“That’s exactly what they were made for – cynically messing up Biden’s immigration agenda. But the agreements are inapplicable. Among the other legal flaws, they probably have no legal authorization and were probably signed by a DHS official with no authority to sign them, ”said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, noting that the former employee the agency that signed the agreements, Ken Cuccinelli, had been determined to be likely to be appointed illegally to his duties in the department.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, noted that the lawsuit was filed in a court in Victoria, Texas, in an effort, he believes, to find a friendly judge who is hostile to the Biden government.
“It would certainly be something if a government could enter into a contract with a state that would prohibit its successor from exercising any discretionary powers in applying the relevant federal laws,” said Vladeck.
The agreement establishes a “binding and enforceable commitment between DHS and the Agency” that the local jurisdiction will cooperate with DHS in border security and immigration enforcement in exchange for “DHS’s commitment to consult the Agency and consider its views beforehand. taking any action, adopting or modifying a policy or procedure, or making any decision that could “reduce or relax the application of immigration, decrease the number of ICE agents carrying out application within the area of jurisdiction, pause deportations, decrease prisons of immigration or expand immigration benefits, among other policies
The agreement continues to establish that DHS will “prioritize the protection of the United States” by applying immigration laws in a way that prioritizes detention and results in the arrest of “removable aliens”.
DHS is required to provide local jurisdictions with 180 days written notice of the “proposed action and an opportunity to consult and comment on the proposed action, before taking any action” listed above. If any of the parties does not “fulfill” the obligations, they will be entitled to the “precautionary measure”, according to the contract. Either party can “request in writing” to terminate the contract, but must provide 180 days notice.
Previously, the state of Texas led the charge in federal court of blocking the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country from deportation at a young age. This lawsuit is still pending before the Federal Court.