re: Supreme Court just ruled that TX can deport illegals

quote:

---

Am I correct in that postulation?

---

Believe so. Doesnt this precedent allow Orange to do mass deports with Govs of states?

quote:

---

So, via precedent, this should mean that every state has the legal right to deport illegals who are unlawfully residing within their borders if they so choose...

Am I correct in that postulation?

---

I think it's murkier than that. There is a concurrence that seems to put a lot of emphasis on the nature of the 5th Circuit stay (candidly I haven't seen the Court focus previously on what ACB is focused on) but it strikes me as something we can't lean too heavily on yet.

Don't get me wrong I think it's good, but here you had a district court judge finding the law unconstitutional, followed by a stay at the circuit court. And with two conservatives leaning heavily on a pretty administrative basis for not overturning the 5th Circuit stay, I just don't think we can have a ton of confidence it would absolutely be replicated.

It seems like we'll get some better clarity from the 5th before long and get a better idea of the long term fate of this legislation (and potentially those of other states intending to replicate).

Here's the intro to the ACB/Kav concurrence

quote:

---

If the Fifth Circuit had issued a stay pending appeal, this Court would apply the four-factor test set forth in Nken v. Holder—including, as relevant in this Court, an assessment of certworthiness—to decide whether to vacate it. 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Does 1–3 v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (Barrett, J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ). But the Fifth Circuit has not entered a stay pending appeal. Instead, in an exercise of its docket- management authority, it issued a temporary administrative stay and deferred the stay motion to a merits panel, which is considering it in conjunction with Texas’s challenge to the District Court’s injunction of S. B. 4. Thus, the Fifth Circuit has not yet rendered a decision on whether a stay pending appeal is warranted. That puts this case in a very unusual procedural posture.

---