At the midst of the legal turmoil surrounding immigration enforcement, the Biden administration has issued a stern warning to Supreme Court justices, as reported by Fox News on January 10, 2024. The potential ramifications of a ruling against the administration in a pivotal case involving Notices to Appear (NTA) extend far and wide, jeopardizing the reevaluation of hundreds of thousands of deportation cases and exacerbating the strain on the already overwhelmed immigration system.
At the center of this legal showdown is a case revolving around the use of Notices to Appear, which are directives provided to undocumented immigrants before their release into the interior, instructing them to appear before an immigration court. However, controversy arises when these documents lack a specific court date and simply state “TBD” (To Be Determined).
In such instances, a separate court date is subsequently sent to the undocumented immigrant. Failure to attend can result in a deportation order “in absentia.” The Biden administration asserts that the current practice of issuing TBDs on NTAs constitutes a valid form of notice.
More Read
The case originally focused on an El Salvadoran undocumented immigrant who alleges missing his court date due to not receiving the mailed information. Two other undocumented immigrants with similar circumstances have joined the case, challenging the government’s stance on proper notice.
During oral arguments, government lawyers raised a red flag, cautioning the Supreme Court about the consequences of ruling against them. Charles McCloud, representing the government, emphasized that such a decision could lead to an “avalanche” of deportation cases being reexamined and reintroduced into the immigration system.
McCloud pointed to a substantial increase in in absentia orders of removal, from 380 in 2021 to over 11,000 in 2023, amid the recent border crisis. He expressed concern that injecting hundreds of thousands of cases back into the immigration system would disadvantage non-citizens who complied with the rules, went to their removal proceedings, and could be removed at the end of the process.
The fear is that the administration’s ability to enforce immigration laws would be severely compromised. Lawyers representing the undocumented immigrants countered, asserting that any negative consequences would result from the government’s failure to adhere to the statute over the years.
Easha Anand, representing the plaintiffs, highlighted, “For many non-citizens who have no pathway to staying in the United States, it’s very unlikely that they’re going to come forward and file one of these motions to reopen because the best they get is another hearing.”
With a staggering 302,000 migrant encounters in December alone and reports indicating that over 85% of migrants are currently being released into the interior, the Biden administration faces a challenging task in balancing enforcement and humanitarian concerns.
