Judges reject contesting “keep in Mexico” coverage
By Amy Howe
on June 21, 2021
at 8:52 p.m.
On a day on which the court passed important rulings on university sports and securities law, the order list of the private conference of judges last week caused less attention on Monday morning. The court didn’t add any new cases to its fall file, but it has asked the federal government to weigh the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal ordinance – a move that could enable a potential successor to Judge Stephen Breyer to headlight. And in a separate order issued later Monday morning, the judges touted a Trump-era asylum policy after the Biden administration ended the program.
The judges challenged the views of acting US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar in the Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly. The case focuses on the interpretation of a US Department of Housing and Urban Development ordinance that defines “income” for the purposes of a federal program known as Section 8 that provides a grant to help low-income families pay theirs Help hire. The specific question before the California Supreme Court in the following decision, on which the federal government has now been asked for comment, is whether the compensation a parent receives for caring for their severely disabled adult daughter should count as “income”. if a public housing authority calculates a subsidy according to § 8. A narrowly divided California Supreme Court ruled that compensation should be excluded from income. Court chairman Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote a dissenting opinion, which was followed by Judge Leondra Kruger, often cited as one of President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court shortlists.
Independently of this, the Supreme Court in Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab left the challenge to the Trump administration’s “stay in Mexico” policy that allowed the Department of Homeland Security to seek asylum on the southern border in Mexico while awaiting US hearings. The discharge did not come as a surprise. The court had agreed to weigh the policy in October 2020, but in February the Biden administration asked the judges to remove the case from the February calendar.
In a brief filed in June, Prelogar called on the court to invalidate the lower court’s judgment and to return the case with instructions to dismiss the district court’s 2019 order preventing the federal government from implementing the directive. Prelogar argued that the case was contentious – that is, no more live controversy – because Homeland Security Minister Alejandro Mayorkas ended the “stay in Mexico” policy on June 1. In an unsigned order, the judges did just that. The order also denied as disputed a motion by a Texas-led group of states to join the Biden government defense lawsuit.
The judges will meet again for a private conference on Thursday, June 24th – the last regular conference before the judges’ summer break. The court is expected to issue orders to this conference on Monday, June 28, and will almost certainly issue additional orders after the last day of the term of office.
This article was originally published by Howe on the Court.