Biden’s DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to do a huge favor for Donald Trump, in Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop - Vox.com

# Biden’s DOJ Just Asked the Supreme Court to Do a Huge Favor for Donald Trump: Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Joe Biden recently made a surprising move by asking the Supreme Court to intervene in a case involving Texas’s controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 4 (SB4). This law allows state law enforcement to arrest and detain people suspected of entering the U.S. illegally. The DOJ’s request could indirectly benefit former President Donald Trump, who has long championed strict immigration policies. Here’s a breakdown of the situation, its historical context, public opinion, counterarguments, and potential implications.

---

## **Historical Background: How We Got Here**

- **Immigration as a Political Flashpoint**: Immigration has been a contentious issue in U.S. politics for decades. In recent years, it has become even more polarizing, with Republicans advocating for stricter border controls and Democrats pushing for more humane and comprehensive immigration reform.

- **Texas’s SB4 Law**: In 2023, Texas passed SB4, which empowers state police to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of illegal border crossings. Critics argue this law oversteps federal authority, as immigration enforcement is traditionally a federal responsibility under the U.S. Constitution.

- **The Legal Battle**: The Biden administration sued Texas, arguing that SB4 violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives the federal government exclusive power over immigration matters. Lower courts blocked the law, but Texas appealed to the Supreme Court.

- **The DOJ’s Request**: In a surprising twist, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower court’s ruling, effectively allowing SB4 to take effect temporarily. This move has raised eyebrows, as it aligns with Trump-era immigration policies.

---

## **General Public Opinion**

Public opinion on this issue is deeply divided, reflecting broader political polarization:

- **Supporters of SB4**: Many conservatives and Trump supporters applaud Texas for taking a tough stance on illegal immigration. They argue that the federal government has failed to secure the border, forcing states to act.

- **Opponents of SB4**: Progressives and immigrant rights advocates criticize the law as unconstitutional and fear it will lead to racial profiling and civil rights violations. They also question why the Biden DOJ is supporting a law that aligns with Trump’s agenda.

- **Mixed Reactions to the DOJ’s Move**: Some see the DOJ’s request as a pragmatic legal strategy to maintain federal authority, while others view it as a betrayal of Biden’s campaign promises to protect immigrants.

---

## **Counterarguments: Why Some Disagree**

While the DOJ’s request has sparked debate, there are valid counterarguments to consider:

- **Federal Authority vs. State Rights**: Some legal experts argue that the DOJ’s move is necessary to uphold the principle of federal supremacy in immigration matters. Allowing Texas to enforce its own immigration laws could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other states to follow suit.

- **Political Strategy**: Others suggest that the DOJ’s request is a tactical move to avoid a broader Supreme Court ruling that could permanently weaken federal immigration authority. By asking the Court to pause the lower court’s decision, the DOJ may be buying time to resolve the issue through other means.

- **Biden’s Immigration Record**: Critics argue that the Biden administration’s handling of immigration has been inconsistent, leading to confusion and frustration among both supporters and opponents.

---

## **Implications: What’s at Stake?**

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences:

- **For Immigration Policy**: If the Supreme Court allows SB4 to stand, it could embolden other states to pass similar laws, creating a patchwork of immigration policies across the country. This would undermine federal authority and complicate enforcement efforts.

- **For the Biden Administration**: The DOJ’s request risks alienating progressive voters who expected Biden to take a more compassionate approach to immigration. It also highlights the challenges of balancing legal strategy with political promises.

- **For the Supreme Court**: The case will test the Court’s willingness to uphold federal authority in the face of state challenges. It could also shape the Court’s legacy on immigration and states’ rights issues.

---

## **Lessons Learned**

- **The Complexity of Immigration Reform**: This case underscores the difficulty of addressing immigration in a polarized political climate. Even well-intentioned efforts can have unintended consequences.

- **The Role of the Courts**: The judiciary plays a critical role in resolving disputes between federal and state governments, but its decisions can have profound political and social impacts.

- **The Need for Bipartisanship**: Without bipartisan cooperation, immigration reform will remain a contentious and unresolved issue, leaving millions of people in legal limbo.

---

In conclusion, the DOJ’s request in *Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop* is a high-stakes legal and political maneuver that could reshape immigration enforcement in the U.S. While it may seem like a favor to Trump, it also reflects the Biden administration’s struggle to navigate a deeply divided landscape. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine the fate of SB4 but also set a precedent for the balance of power between federal and state governments. As the case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the enduring challenges and complexities of immigration policy in America.