In his next steps in changing course from the previous administration's immigration policies, President Biden has asked the Supreme Court to cancel arguments on two cases filed against the Trump administration's immigration policies. The cases tackle President Trump's construction of the border wall and his “Remain in Mexico” asylum program. Both cases are scheduled to be heard on February 22nd and March 1st respectively.

The acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who will be representing the federal government in both cases at the Supreme Court, has asked the Court to take both cases off of the oral arguments calendar. Prelogar cites President Biden's proclamations made on his first day in office that included freezing construction on the border wall and suspending enrollment in the asylum program.

When both cases were initially filed during Trump’s administration, the lower courts ruled against Trump. However, after the Trump administration filed appeals, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases.

The challenge against the construction of the border wall comes after the Sierra Club argued that the money being used to build the border wall was not properly allocated. After President Trump declared an emergency at the southern border, he argued that this gave him the authority to secure funding from the government. Nearly $2.5 billion came from the budget of the Department of Defense and was set to go toward constructing the border wall (a budget now under review by the Biden administration).

Despite lawmakers arguing against supplying the administration with funding, Trump argued that the emergency at the southern border warranted using money that was allocated for other means. Lower courts ruled that President Trump was overstepping his authority; however, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court allowed Trump to proceed with pulling the funds. On his first day in office, President Biden reversed the declaration of an emergency at the southern border in an attempt to reverse allocations of funds.

President Biden's administration shares in court documents, "The President has directed the Executive Branch to undertake an assessment of 'the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall.'" It adds, "It would therefore be appropriate for the court to hold further proceedings in this case in abeyance to allow for the completion of the process that the president has directed."

In the case challenging the “Remain in Mexico” asylum program, the Trump-era policy sent back over 60,000 asylum seekers to Mexico while U.S. officials reviewed their claims for asylum in the U.S. The program challenged in the suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other immigration advocacy groups was suspended by the Department of Homeland Security after President Biden entered office. The program was criticized for several reasons including its treatment of unaccompanied minors.

One of the more controversial aspects of this asylum policy was that individuals who were not from Mexico were sent there to wait out their time until there was an update on their asylum case. This included immigrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

As the Biden Administration continues on its path of reversing many Trump-era immigration policies, it is expected that the battle may be an uphill one. In one of his latest executive orders, President Biden issued a 100-day deportation freeze on undocumented immigrants already in the state. This deportation freeze was met with criticism by several border states, and soon after President Biden signed off on the executive order, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton along with other jurisdictions on the southern border filed a lawsuit against the administration. A judge ruled in favor of AG Paxton and put a block on the deportation freeze. The block was the new administration's first major blow in reversing Trump-era immigration policies.

These cases are just two of several other cases currently pending in the Supreme Court. The Biden administration will likely follow a similar path of asking the courts to cancel hearing these pending cases.