In a significant development amidst the ongoing legal challenges surrounding immigration enforcement, the Biden administration has issued a robust caution to Supreme Court justices, alerting them to the extensive ramifications if a crucial case involving Notices to Appear (NTA) rules against the administration.
According to a report by Fox News dated Wednesday, January 10, 2024, the potential fallout of an adverse ruling in the pivotal case concerning NTAs could lead to the reevaluation of hundreds of thousands of deportation cases, thrusting them back into an immigration system already grappling with overwhelming challenges.
At the core of this legal showdown is the utilization of Notices to Appear, which are issued to illegal immigrants upon their release, directing them to appear before an immigration court. The contention arises when these documents lack a specific court date, simply stating “TBD” (To Be Determined).
More Read
In such instances, a separate court date is later sent to the illegal immigrant. However, failure to attend can result in an order for deportation “in absentia.”
The Biden administration argues that the current practice of issuing TBDs on NTAs constitutes a valid form of notice.
The case initially centered on an El Salvadoran illegal immigrant who asserts missing his court date due to not receiving the mailed information. Two other illegal immigrants with similar circumstances have since 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 potential consequences of ruling against them.
Charles McCloud, representing the government, emphasized that such a decision could trigger an “avalanche” of deportation cases being reexamined and reintegrated into the immigration system. McCloud highlighted a significant surge in in absentia orders of removal, from 380 in 2021 to over 11,000 in 2023, amid the recent border crisis.
“We are very concerned that those hundreds of thousands of cases could be injected back into the immigration system,” McCloud warned the justices. “So… that already substantial increase we have seen is going to turn into an avalanche.”
He added, “And that disadvantages other non-citizens who did follow the rules, who complied and went to their removal proceedings because those non-citizens could be removed at the end of their proceedings, but someone… who just decides ‘I don’t want to show up’ has this in absentia order, but it could always be rescinded under the Ninth Circuit’s rule.”
There is a prevailing fear that a ruling against the administration could severely compromise its ability to enforce immigration laws.
In response, lawyers representing the illegal immigrants argued that any negative consequences would stem from the government’s failure to adhere to the statute over the years.
Easha Anand, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized, “And so, you know, for many, 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 formidable challenge in balancing enforcement and humanitarian concerns.
