FWD.us Statement on Biden v. Texas

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert in Biden v. Texas, which will decide whether it is within the power of the executive branch, not individual federal district judges, to determine our country’s foreign policy, and the authority of a new presidential administration to change the policy adopted by its predecessor. FWD.us President Todd Schulte issued the following statement:

“The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Biden v. Texas will stretch far beyond immigration, migration, or border policy. What is at stake is the very ability of any future President of any political party to set and implement their own policies, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security.

“The Supreme Court must make clear in Biden v. Texas that a single federal district court judge cannot be allowed to dictate the foreign policy of the United States, authority that clearly and constitutionally rests with the executive branch. The effect of the lower court rulings in this case is that the President of Mexico has more power than the President of the United States in exercising discretionary immigration enforcement authority granted to the executive branch by Congress. Further, the lower court’s suggestion that the immigration law requires Remain in Mexico to stay in effect unless the US can – and does – indefinitely detain all asylum seekers is an unprecedented interpretation of the law that goes beyond even the extreme view applied by the Trump administration. This cannot possibly be what Congress intended.

“We have repeatedly made clear that the unlawful, politically-motivated Remain in Mexico order is abjectly bad policy that is inconsistent with our longstanding tradition of welcoming people fleeing oppression. But this is not what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide. The case before the Supreme Court is about whether the government took the appropriate steps to terminate the Remain in Mexico Policy, and whether the Court will allow district courts to ignore what it had itself instructed the government to do, which is to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to make policy changes at the executive level. This is what the Supreme Court made clear in Regents when it considered President Trump’s effort to end DACA, another discretionary program. The Court did not say President Trump could not end DACA, but simply that he had to do so in accordance with the APA.

“President Trump and all previous presidents charted a course of action that often differed significantly from their predecessors on a wide range of issues. President Biden and all future presidents of either party should be free to do the same within the bounds of the law.”

Get in touch with us:

Tell the world; share this article via...