Supreme Court: 44-year-old Trump Stooge on Federal District Court is president now
By 
Time for another Noah Feldman column about the moderation of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett!
The big question was always: Are the Supreme Court’s conservatives consistent skeptics of nationwide injunctions against immigration policy, or are they just doing favors for the Trump administration. Now we know the answer. And it’s appalling.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 25, 2021
I have no idea how the Biden administration can negotiate a revival of Remain in Mexico immediately. No one does. It may be impossible. Set aside the immense suffering that the conservative justices just inflicted on migrants. From a geopolitical standpoint, this is demented. https://t.co/ZvbOwQqBKU— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 25, 2021
I have very smart lawyer friends who assured me the Supreme Court would not do what it did tonight. That the conservative justices would not leap headfirst into partisan nihilism. They’re in a state of shock right now. This is one of the most lawless things SCOTUS has ever done.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 25, 2021
We should also be clear here that Kacsmaryk’s opinion is just wrong — not in the “contestable reading of ambiguous language I disagree with” sense but in the “the relevant statute absolutely does not say what he says it says” sense:
The bigger problem with Kacsmaryk’s opinion is his egregious misreading of federal immigration law.
Kacsmaryk claims that when an asylum seeker arrives at the US-Mexico border, federal law only gives the US government two options: “(1) mandatory detention; or (2) return to a contiguous territory.” But that’s just false. The law gives federal immigration officials a menu of options, including granting an asylum seeker parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” or releasing the immigrant on bond.
Under a doctrine known as “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive branch also has broad discretion to decide not to bring enforcement actions against individual immigrants.
So if the Supreme Court decides to follow the law, Texas is an easy case. The Biden administration has a strong legal argument, rooted both in statutory text and in longstanding constitutional doctrines. And the foreign policy implications of allowing judges like Kacsmaryk to interfere with American immigration policy could be disastrous.
In conclusion, it is very important that Stephen Breyer be replaced by a Republican president to preserve the Sacred Institutional Legitimacy of the Supreme Court (and because Lisa Blatt could use a few more ivory backscratchers.)
…my suggestion for the next move:
"Judge Kacsmaryk has issued his Newsmax op-ed; now let him enforce it" — Andrés Manuel López Obrador— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) August 25, 2021