Stephen Miller’s “public charge” rule that sought to punish working immigrant families is dead, for now.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an effort led by Arizona’s Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich seeking “to join a lawsuit and defend the so-called ‘public charge’ rule, since the Biden administration had declined to do so,” Roll Call reports. “But a federal appeals court had blocked the states from joining the lawsuit.”
The states didn’t have any better luck this week when the Supreme Court let the lower court order stand. Other GOP-led states that had been a part of Arizona’s effort included Louisiana and Texas, which have both steadily used the courts to sabotage the Biden administration’s immigration agenda.
RELATED STORY: Trump admin's 'public charge' rule change is an attack on working families and legal immigration
Campaign Action
“While the fight is never over, immigrant communities in California and across the nation should rest a little easier tonight,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Trump-era public charge rule no longer exists. In court after court, we have prevailed against those who seek to tear us apart and rip away access to sorely-needed public programs. In California, we will not let up in our efforts to defend the rights of all of our residents.”
Following a number of lower court orders against the discriminatory policy, the Biden administration told the justices last year that it was dropping the government’s defense of the rule, which sought to make it easier to deny green cards to working immigrant families. But the policy was already having intended, dire effects even before it was officially implemented, with families pulling children out of nutrition programs they were perfectly eligible for.
“The Biden administration rescinded the rule and has since announced new guidelines,” the Associated Press said. Bonta said the proposed rule is “consistent with applicable law and will support state efforts to protect the health, safety, and well-being of immigrant families and all state residents.”
"If the justices had allowed these states to continue to defend the Trump-era policy, that would've set a remarkable precedent for other states to follow at the end of both this presidency and future ones," University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck told CNN. "Although the court did not specifically reject the states' effort, its summary, procedural ruling leaves intact the lower court ruling that did—a precedent that will matter going forward."
But Texas in particular has had mostly good luck in using the courts to sabotage the president. The Texas Tribune reported in March that “most of its cases—and victories—have played out in Texas courts with judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, who appointed 226 federal judges while in office, a number the former president has bragged about.” David Leopold, former American Immigration Lawyers Association president, has called it an “anti-immigrant judicial pipeline.”
RELATED STORIES:
Biden admin tells Supreme Court it won't defend previous admin's discriminatory 'public charge' rule
Trump administration's discriminatory 'public charge' rule change racks up fourth loss in court
Stephen Miller's latest racist attack has immigrants pulling their kids out of nutrition programs
