Louisiana too.

I do not know why it is so hard for folks to understand wo Legislation by Congress this is the purview of Executive Branch.

The Court did not even hear the case.

States have no standing, no role in Federal Migration Policy.

https://apple.news/AC4fi9fvhReiy8OcaS66jww

States have concerns that federal,laws are followed!

If not then only state law matters.......


.

All it shows is that the lawyers didn’t parse the suit properly.

The left was able to get quite a ways with various anti deportation suits against Trump (and previous republican presidents)…

It’s all a logic puzzle exercise.

Do you need me to cite all the Supreme Court Cases that hold the States cannot regulate migration.

You are most incorrect. States have no authority to set migration/border policy. That is the sole purview of the Federal Government.


I have citied these cases before. How about you go look took them up.

(b) There are good reasons why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. For one, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___. The principle of Executive Branch enforcement dis- cretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration con- text. Courts also generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area, which are invariably affected by resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs. That is why this Court has recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. Pp. 6–9.


In other words, that the asserted injury is traditionally redressable in federal court. States wanting the Fed Government to enforce in the face of recognized Executive Discretion is not “rede readable in Fedrral Court.”

The States have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit.

The leading precedent is Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 (1973). The plaintiff in that case contested a State’s policy of declining to prosecute certain child-support violations. This Court decided that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the State’s policy, reasoning that in “American jurisprudence at least,” a party “lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution ... of another.” Id., at 619. The Court concluded that “a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Ibid.


The above From the current, most recent case. The States do not have at law the remedy to strip Executive Discretion in exercising Fed Power. This, they have no standing to force the Executive to do anything through Fed Court.

Now, Congress might.

You need to read this case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

The basic holding is states may not regulate the border or implement migration policy as that is a power reserved to the Fed Government.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
States have concerns that federal,laws are followed!

If not then only state law matters.......


.

JTex this is not the law and expressly rejected in the current case. State do not have the power to pass migration/border laws.

The most recent and controlling case is ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES. It is one of many that have always held the states do not have the power under our Constitution to regulate or pass migration/border policy.

Do it the way the left goes at it from the pro immigration side...

You make the argument that its affecting one of the specified items in the bill of rights or argue that something is in the constitution, and the court agrees with it.

If the lawsuit brought against the free allowances for immigration would have been argued on the basis that it was violating someone's or group's constitutional rights or that the law was violating a power not delegated to the federal government, or perhaps if they had brought it on the basis of a constitutionally passed law was being violated by Biden, then it would have gotten further.

That was my point.

The right brings lawsuits that miss the arguments that the supreme court thinks are its proper purview. Arguing that Biden should be making a different policy isn't something that SCOTUS will get involved with...

Tire point has no ground in legal theory.

The Constitution gives to the Fed Government control of the border and migration.

The states have no remedy at law to force through the Fed Court the Federal Executive’s due exercise in discretion concerning the border and migration. That is a full stop.

Only Congress can tell the President what it must do on the border/migration. That is an open question.

An individual might sue because of some Federally protected right, but there is no Federally protected right to be arrested.

Individual Citizens do not have standing to sue to enforce a Federal or even State Law.

That is could tax payer standing, and has been repeatedly rejected.

Maybe if undocumented migrants actually, in fact, not just “my ranch is not safe,” attempted to adverse possess a home owner that person would have standing. Yet, that person is not suing bc of migrant status. They are suing for an illegal taking that is not dependent on migrant status. The taking is illegal regardless of migrant status.

The state could not have structured this action any different. They tried to frame it otherwise, but the Court in the footnote was clear. The states action was because the President had prioritized arresting undocumented migrants w felonies over simple migrant status. The result requested was the make the Fed Executive Branch arrest more people. There is no way fir the states to get around that as there is no federal right to get arrested.


That is an impermissible demand by the States. The States do not have the authority to force the Fed Executive to enforce border/migrant policy; especially when the Executive is exercising due discretion.

The whole, well the Feds are not doing anything. Thus, the states direct border/migrant policy was rejected for about the fifth time in AZ v United States.