Supreme Court Rejects Texas-Led Attempt to Protect Trump-Era Immigration Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 9 rejected a Texas-led challenge to reinstate a Trump-era policy that blocked certain immigrants from gaining permanent residency status if they’re deemed likely to qualify for government benefits.

An appeal from 14 Republican-led state attorneys general, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought to rescind a lower court ruling against their request to mount a legal defense of Trump’s “public charge” rule after President Joe Biden stopped defending the measure and later rescinded it. The policy was put into effect by the Trump administration in February 2020 and was ended by the Biden administration in March 2021.

Other than Texas, the attorneys general are from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Last year, a federal judge in Illinois vacated the rule nationwide. The judge later rejected the Republican bid to intervene, saying the request by the state officials came too late, and the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2022 agreed with the lower court’s ruling.

The case didn’t focus on whether the rule was constitutional but on whether the Biden administration followed the proper rule-making procedures when it revoked it. The policy had made it difficult for immigrants to obtain permanent residency, or a “green card,” if they used public benefits such as Medicaid, housing vouchers, or food stamps.

The Department of Homeland Security rescinded the rule in March 2021, two months after Biden took office. Republicans argued that the administration abandoned the usual public comment period that often precedes the rescinding of major regulations.

In June 2022, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch to dismiss that challenge.

“It has become clear that this mare’s nest could stand in the way of our reaching the question presented on which we granted certiorari, or at the very least, complicate our resolution of that question,” Roberts wrote at the time.

“When this and other suits challenging the Rule were first brought in 2019, the Government defended it. And when multiple lower courts, including the District Court here, found the Rule unlawful, the Government appealed those decisions. After a change in administrations, though, the Government reversed course and opted to voluntarily dismiss those appeals, leaving in place the relief already entered.”

But Roberts said last year’s decision “should not be taken as reflective of a view on any of the foregoing issues, or on the appropriate resolution of other litigation, pending or future” in connection to the immigration rule.

“I’ve sued [President Joe] Biden over a dozen times to secure our southern border,” Paxton wrote on Twitter in reference to his latest lawsuit against the administration. “Now, just as 2023 is starting, I’m bringing another lawsuit—the first of its kind in the nation on Biden’s disastrous new public-charge rule. I’ll keep suing [and] winning until he [and] his lawless Dems follow the law.”

The Republican attorney general alleged Biden is promoting an open borders agenda after enacting the new rule. Biden has received constant criticism from Republicans about his immigration policies and security along the U.S.–Mexico border.

On Jan. 8, Biden visited El Paso, Texas, and met with law enforcement officials and watched demonstrations. The president also visited the El Paso Migrant Services Center, which houses and supports people who recently crossed into the United States illegally.

After arriving in Texas, the president met with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who handed a paper that Abbott later said was a proposal with several solutions to immigration problems.