For four years, the Treason Lobby and its kritarch handmaidens waged lawfare against the Trump Administration’s immigration policies. No legal argument was too far-fetched to stop President Trump from exercising his duly constituted authority over immigration. Now, with United States vs. Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court, we’re back to the days Arizona v. United States, when the Treason Lobby argued that the states had nothing to say about immigration policy. We’re to believe the federal government cannot be challenged in court on immigration because it affects foreign policy and executive authority.

Legal experts also say that how the justices rule on the more procedural issues in the case could carry sweeping implications for how immigration rules may be contested in court. https://t.co/hgimOuLA9d

— Roll Call (@rollcall) November 28, 2022

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument Tuesday about the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement priorities, in a case that could bolster or curtail the power of states to challenge federal immigration policies.

The justices will consider litigation brought by Texas and Louisiana to stop implementation of a Department of Homeland Security memo from last year that instructs immigration agents to prioritize the arrests of immigrants who threaten national security or public safety, as well as migrants who recently crossed the border.

[Supreme Court To Hear Argument Over Biden Immigration Priorities, by  Suzanne Monyak, Roll Call, November 28, 2022]

But the Biden Regime did not change “immigration enforcement priorities,” as Monyak claimed. It ended interior immigration enforcement by exempting most illegal aliens from arrest and deportation. That was the effect of the policy in question.  Indeed, the regime has released more than 1 million illegals. Biden has resurrected the policies of his former boss, Barack Hussein Obama, who also stopped interior enforcement. Worse still, the Biden regime’s “priority” isn’t one. Deportations of criminals have dramatically decreased.

That aside, again, consider the crucial aspect in this case.

“State lawsuits have frustrated immigration policy changes during recent administrations, including a June ruling that stopped DHS from implementing this internal guidance meant to focus limited departmental resources,” Monyak continued:

“In the immigration context, courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch because immigration touches on sovereignty and foreign relations,” [Cornell law professor Stephen] Yale-Loehr said.

But if the high court greenlights the state lawsuit against the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities, “it means that the federal government is no longer getting the benefit of the doubt” in this context, Yale-Loehr said.

Got that? Under Trump we were told that illegals could not be detained or deported, despite specific statutory authority. Now, we are told, the courts must ignore the president’s decision to jettison immigration law.

Perhaps House Speaker Kevin McCarthy would like to solve this problem.