Ed Morrissey:
In fact, Justice Jackson even concedes that the government might be likely to win on the merits, but still objects to the stay. Why? Because Jackson and Sotomayor don't like the policy outcomes -- not because they would violate statutes, laws, or the Constitution, but simply because they prefer different outcomes. That might make a good argument in a legislature, but not in a judicial review. The Supreme Court has no legitimate role in imposing policy preferences outside of ensuring that the laws are enforced properly.
As for "precipitously upending the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens," one has to wonder how Jackson and Sotomayor define temporary. Joe Biden may have wanted to use it as a conduit to permanent residency in the US, but that isn't what Temporary Protected Status means or intends. It is meant to temporarily shelter people from acute circumstances of war and natural disaster, not permanent relocation. Many of these migrants have been here for years already, all the while under a status that has been both legal and temporary. These migrants have had months to prepare for an end to this status -- certainly the six months since the election, or four months since the inauguration. How much time do they need to prepare? Four years?
# posted by Ranger @ 3:34 PM
