这美国最高法院周二，我与华盛顿的一个长期难题搏斗了两个多小时:如何在联邦法律中的移民执法授权与国会未能提供足够的资金来完成这项工作之间找到平衡点。

法官们还考虑了像德克萨斯州和加利福尼亚州这样的州路易斯安那，遭受所谓的伤害违法的移居，可以起诉政府强制其打击。

对于这些充满政治意味的问题，似乎没有明确的答案。

“‘Shall’就是‘应该’的意思。”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨建议联邦法律指示国土安全部“拘留”被判犯有某些罪行的非法移民。

但罗伯茨接着指出，行政部门“不可能”拘留和驱逐所有1100万符合美国驱逐条件的移民。“当然，在一些情况下，我们说过‘应该’就是‘可能’，”他补充说。(据DHS称，政府只有6000名内部移民执法人员。)

这个案子的核心是国土安全部指导方针由拜登政府在2021年设立，旨在优先逮捕和驱逐被视为对国家安全或公共安全构成威胁的非法移民，而不是那些非罪犯。

奥巴马政府辩称，它在如何拘留和驱逐移民方面拥有广泛的自由裁量权，这与两党政府长期以来采取的做法一致。

“这是关于优先考虑有限的资源，说去追A而不是B，”副检察长伊丽莎白·普雷洛加说。“没有理由得出这样的结论，即总体而言，这实际上会导致针对个人的执法减少。”

德克萨斯州和路易斯安那州对指导方针提出质疑，声称白宫驱逐出境的做法是滥用自由裁量权，给州纳税人带来了成本。

“各州承担了联邦移民决定的许多后果，”得克萨斯州副检察长贾德·斯通说。他声称多达80，000名“犯罪外国人”住在德克萨斯州。

“我们要么通过拘留，要么通过累犯来支付费用，”斯通说。

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone talks to reporters along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, right, and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, left, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after arguments in their case about Title 42 on April 26, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images，文件

一家联邦地区法院去年在全国范围内取消了该指南，目前该指南并未生效。拜登政府要求最高法院恢复他们的职位。

几个保守派法官非常怀疑这些指导方针是否符合联邦法律。

“我们有一套由国会制定的优先事项，另一套由行政部门制定。难道不对吗?”塞缪尔·阿利托法官问普雷洛加。

“不，这是错误的，”她回答说，“因为指导方针只管理关于逮捕和驱逐的决定，是否首先指控非公民。”

公正布雷特·卡瓦诺暗示政府滥用移民执法自由裁量权，迫使国会中的一些人考虑“戏剧性的步骤”进行补偿。

“国会有什么工具来确保其法律在美国得到执行?”卡瓦诺问普雷洛加。“我认为你的立场是，国会不得不诉诸关闭政府或弹劾或戏剧性的步骤，而不是司法审查，如果它-如果一些政府进来说我们不会执行法律。”

法院的三名自由派法官对政府更加顺从。

“移民政策应该是行政权力的顶点，”大法官埃琳娜·卡根告诉斯通。“我们将面临这样一种局面:每个政府都面临诉讼，各州只需出示一美元的成本，就可以让一项政策完全停止。”

“仅仅对你的成本有一系列推测性的可能性是不够的，”她说。

凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊法官她对在做出驱逐决定之前强迫DHS拘留非法移民的实际影响感到“不安”。“你不能无限期地拘留人，”她说，并提到了几个月到几年的案件积压。

法官们花了大量时间处理两个潜在的解决方案，这两个方案都不涉及权衡指导方针本身的优点。

一种方法是裁定下级法院撤销指导方针是错误的，因为联邦移民法明确限制了法院的干预能力。另一个选择可能是发现得克萨斯州和路易斯安那州没有资格提起诉讼，或者没有足够的证据证明受到了伤害。

“如果你赢了，这里会发生什么?”卡瓦诺问得克萨斯州副检察长斯通。

“ICE中的个别官员会回过头来不相信他们的执法自由裁量权受到了限制，”斯通回答说。

拜登政府有一个截然不同的答案:“这将是令人难以置信的地面不稳定，”普雷洛加坚持。“对行政部门不利，对美国公众不利，对第三条法院也不利。”

预计将于2023年6月底做出决定。

Supreme Court conflicted over Biden deportation policy

TheU.S. Supreme Courton Tuesday wrestled for more than two hours with a perennial Washington pickle: how to square immigration enforcement mandates in federal law with Congress' failure to provide sufficient funding to do the job.

The justices also took on whether states like Texas andLouisiana, suffering alleged harm fromillegalimmigration, can sue the government to force it to crack down.

There appeared to be no clear answers to the politically charged questions.

"'Shall' means 'shall,'"Chief Justice John Robertssuggested of federal law instructing the Department of Homeland Security to "take into custody" unlawful immigrants convicted of certain crimes.

But Roberts went on to observe "it's impossible" for the executive branch to detain and deport all 11 million immigrants eligible for removal from the U.S. "Certainly, there are cases where we've said 'shall' means 'may,'" he added. (The government has only 6,000 interior immigration enforcement officers, according to DHS.)

At the heart of the case areDepartment of Homeland Security guidelinesestablished by the Biden administration in 2021 to prioritize arrest and deportation of unlawful immigrants deemed a danger to national security or public safety over those who are otherwise non-criminals.

The administration argues it has broad discretion in how it detains and deports immigrants -- consistent with an approach long taken by governments of both parties.

"It's about prioritizing limited resources to say go after person A instead of person B," argued Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. "There is no reason to conclude that that's actually going to lead to less enforcement against individuals overall."

Texas and Louisiana, which are challenging the guidelines, allege the White House approach to deportations is an abuse of discretion that has imposed costs on state taxpayers.

"States bear many of the consequences of federal immigration decisions," said Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone. He claims up to 80,000 "criminal aliens" are living in Texas.

"We either pay the costs through detention or through recidivism," Stone said.

A federal district court vacated the guidelines nationwide last year, and they are not currently in effect. The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate them.

Severalconservative justiceswere highly skeptical that the guidelines were compliant with federal law.

"We have one set of priorities established by Congress and another set by the executive branch. Isn't that correct?"Justice Samuel Alitoasked of Prelogar.

"No, that's wrong," she replied, "because the guidelines govern only decisions about apprehension and removal, whether to charge a non-citizen in the first place."

JusticeBrett Kavanaughsuggested the government's abuse of immigration enforcement discretion has forced some in Congress to consider "dramatic steps" to compensate.

"What are the tools Congress has to make sure its laws are enforced in the U.S.?" Kavanaugh asked Prelogar. "I think your position is, instead of judicial review, Congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment or dramatic steps if it -- if some administration comes in and says we're not going to enforce laws."

The court's three liberal justices were more deferential to the administration.

"Immigration policy is supposed to be the zenith of executive power," Justice Elena Kagan told Stone. "We're just going to be in a situation where every administration is confronted by suits, by states that can bring a policy to a dead halt by just showing a dollar's worth of costs?"

"It's just not enough [to do that] with a set of speculative possibilities about your costs," she said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jacksonsaid she was "troubled" by the practical impact of forcing DHS to detain unlawful immigrants before a decision has been made on deportation. "You can't just indefinitely hold people," she said, noting the months-to-years-long backlog in cases.

The justices spent significant time grappling with two potential resolutions to the case that would not involve weighing in on the merits of the guidelines themselves.

One approach could be to decide that a lower court erred in vacating the guidelines since federal immigration law explicitly limits courts' ability to intervene. Another option could be to find that Texas and Louisiana don't have standing to bring the case or have not shown sufficient proof of being harmed.

"What will happen here if you prevail?" Kavanaugh asked the Texas Solicitor General Stone.

"Individual officers in ICE will go back to not believing that their enforcement discretion has been restrained," Stone replied.

The Biden administration had a starkly different answer: "It would be incredibly destabilizing on the ground," Prelogar insisted. "Bad for the executive branch, bad for the American public, and bad for Article 3 courts."

A decision is expected by the end of June 2023.