Texas Judge Blocks Biden's 100-day Deportation Freeze
One week in and President Biden has already been met with the first major setback of his presidency. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked Biden's 100-day deportation freeze.
The deportation freeze was implemented via executive order on January 20th. As part of the memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 100-day freeze on deporting undocumented immigrants. The memorandum also included guidelines for civil enforcement of immigration law as well as the intention to do a comprehensive review of current immigration policies and priorities. The 100-day freeze was the most controversial aspect of the memorandum as it allowed immigrants who had a final order of removal to continue staying inside the U.S.
The memorandum explains of the deportation freeze, “DHS’s limited resources must be prioritized to: (1) provide sufficient staff and resources to enhance border security and conduct immigration and asylum processing at the southwest border fairly and efficiently; and (2) comply with COVID-19 protocols to protect the health and safety of DHS personnel and those members of the public with whom DHS personnel interact. In addition, we must ensure that our removal resources are directed to the Department’s highest enforcement priorities.”
Following the executive order, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the administration over the 100-day freeze. Paxton argued that the deportation freeze would put a strain on Texas both financially and in terms of safety and security for Texans. In the request for a temporary restraining order, AG Paxton explains, “Without emergency relief, Texas faces irreparable harm from having to provide costly educational, social, welfare, healthcare, and other services to illegal aliens who remain in Texas because Defendants have ceased removing them.”
Paxton also highlights how the executive order violates federal law. A statement from the Attorney General’s office explains, “On its first day in office, the Biden Administration cast aside congressionally enacted immigration laws and suspended the removal of illegal aliens whose removal is compelled by those very laws. The move violates the U.S. Constitution, federal immigration and administrative law, and a contractual agreement between Texas and DHS.”
Attorney General Paxton points to an agreement that was signed by the Department of Homeland Security and jurisdictions including Texas and Arizona. In the agreement, any changes made to immigration policy would be done only after the jurisdiction was given sufficient notice of at least six months to review any proposed immigration policy changes. The agreement was put together in the final hours of the Trump presidency.
In response to the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton granted the Attorney General's temporary restraining order, blocking Biden's executive order from being fulfilled. In the ruling, Judge Tipton shared,
“The January 20 memorandum not only fails to consider potential policies more limited in scope and time, but it also fails to provide any concrete, reasonable justification for a 100-day pause on deportations.”
Tipton also explained that the ruling is not based on the agreement that was made between the Trump administration and the state. Rather, the ruling is rooted in other concerns that Attorney General Paxton brought up. Tipton explains that the state was able to prove that the 100-day freeze “establishes a substantial risk of imminent and irreparable harm to Texas.”
The Biden administration is expected to appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, Judge Tipton's ruling to block Biden's deportation freeze is being met with criticism. Kate Huddleston, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, filed a brief offering support of the administration memorandum. Huddleston shared with Reuters news,
“The administration’s pause on deportations is not only lawful but necessary to ensure that families are not separated and people are not returned to danger needlessly while the new administration reviews past actions.”
