EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) — A national group of immigration lawyers says the U.S. Supreme Court sent a clear message when it resoundingly rejected challenges to the Biden administration’s deportation guidelines.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that Texas and Louisiana do not have the standing to sue over the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement policies.

Both states sued after DHS issued a memorandum directing immigration agencies — particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement — to focus their enforcement efforts on those who are a threat to national security, those who are a threat to public safety for committing crimes designated as “aggravated” felonies, and migrants who entered the U.S. illegally on or after Nov. 1, 2020.

The states argued that the president did not have the discretion to choose who not to detain and claimed that the policy would cause direct harm because of increased costs for social services, including health care and education.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson that siding with the states would have “far-reaching consequences beyond immigration law.”

“If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like,” wrote Kavanaugh.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association said the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the prerogative of the executive branch to set guidelines for ICE, “allowing the agency to prioritize its work, just like every other local, state, and federal agency does each day.”

“Simply put, this 8-1 decision is a clear message. The states that attempted to derail this commonsense approach were in the wrong,” said Farshad Owji, president of AILA. “SCOTUS upheld our federal system by agreeing that the states in question lacked standing; it was always a bad idea to try and use the courts as a political weapon. Justice wins out today, and this decision means the government will be able to prioritize its limited resources to ensure public safety in a smart and rational manner.”

In a statement issued on Friday afternoon, Security Alejandro Mayorkas applauded the decision and said his agency will reinstitute the ICE guidelines.

“The Guidelines enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress,” he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, however, called the decision “outrageous.”

“SCOTUS gives the Biden Admin. carte blanche to avoid accountability for abandoning enforcement of immigration laws,” he tweeted. “Texas will continue to deploy the National Guard to repel & turn back illegal immigrants trying to enter Texas illegally.”

Abbott on Thursday tweeted a 30-second video that was shot from a boat on the Rio Grande showing the barbed wire that the Texas Army National Guard has installed along the riverbanks.

“The Texas National Guard and DPS have laid miles of razor wire barriers along the Rio Grande,” Abbott tweeted. “Texas is holding the line while Biden ignores the border crisis.”

Migrant advocates also applauded Friday’s Supreme Court ruling. The League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, said the decision represented a step forward in establishing “a comprehensive immigration system that prioritizes the well-being and security of our nation.”

“We are very pleased and encouraged by the court ruling because it recognizes federal supremacy over immigration matters,” said LULAC National President Domingo Garcia. “Texas and Florida Republican governors and attorneys general need to stop using immigrants as political piñatas by passing state unconstitutional, fear-mongering immigration bills.”

To be clear, this case should never have gotten this far. But, (Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton) utilized what we call the “anti-immigrant judicial pipeline.” He knew Federal District Court Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, would be a reliable ally. Plus, he could count on the Fifth Circuit to uphold whatever Tipton decided. This was just another anti-immigrant political ploy masquerading as a lawsuit.”

David Leopold, legal advisor, America’s Voice

Presidential administrations should be able to set priorities in immigration enforcement. Focusing on public safety threats is crucial to our safety and security, as well as good governance. It’s good news that the court recognized the executive branch’s purview in this case. … Congress, not the courts, should be the venue for open, solutions-focused dialogue about the improvements our immigration and border policies need.”

Jennie Murray, president and CEO, National Immigration Forum

With this ruling, the Supreme Court upholds the notion that the executive branch has the discretion to determine when to arrest or deport immigrants and when not to. Now, the Biden Administration must reinvest in prosecutorial discretion and prioritize ending immigration arrests, detention, and deportations. … The Biden Administration must stop the destructive impact that policing, surveillance and immigration enforcement and detention has on communities. The ILRC encourages legal practitioners who have immigrant clients to continue seeking prosecutorial discretion for them.”

Lena Graber, senior staff attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center 

It boggles the mind that this case even made its way to the Supreme Court. It is heartening that the Justices ruled this strongly against the overreach by states. The Biden administration wasn’t abrogating its responsibilities by implementing priorities, it was establishing guidelines to help law enforcement do its job properly. This 8-1 decision is a clear rebuttal to the states’ attempt to take their political battles to the highest court in the land and run roughshod over the administration’s authority.”

Ben Johnson, executive director, American Immigration Lawyers Association