CA5 Amicus Transient: Texas v. DHS

BRIEF OF FORMER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE

“Amici are former officers of the Division of State, Division of Homeland Safety, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and different federal departments and companies who served in each Republican and Democratic administrations. Amici might differ of their views of the parole processes for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as a matter of coverage, however they all agree that applications like these are lawful and are vital to the chief department’s means to implement the nation’s immigration legal guidelines and handle its international coverage. … Regardless of the Supreme Court docket’s repeated exhortation that courts shouldn’t “improperly second-guess” the chief’s parole selections, Biden, 597 U.S. at 816 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589 (1952) (immigration selections are “largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference”), Texas now claims that the CHNV Parole Program exceeds DHS’s authority underneath 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), see Appellants’ Br. 3. This argument is unsuitable. … The manager department has for many years employed applications wherein sure classes of noncitizens are presumptively eligible for parole, topic to case-by-case assessment. Certainly, officers have lengthy relied on such applications to advance the identical goals that underlie the CHNV Parole Program. And in the middle of growing such initiatives, immigration officers have twice explicitly rejected the studying of the statute that Texas now proposes. See infra at 19-20. If Texas had been right, all of these applications would have violated federal regulation. That’s merely not the case. … For many years, § 1182(d)(5) has enabled the chief department to adapt “congressional coverage to infinitely variable circumstances,” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543, by creating applications which have superior the federal government’s diplomatic objectives and helped to scale back irregular migration. Texas’s arguments are at odds with longstanding historic observe, and for good motive: they’d frustrate the govt’s means to reply shortly to emergencies involving border safety, humanitarian catastrophes, and delicate “foreign-policy judgment[s],” Biden, 597 U.S. at 816 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). … For the foregoing causes, if this Court docket reaches the deserves, it ought to conclude that the CHNV Program is lawful.”