On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay of a lower court ruling that the Biden administration's decision to repeal former President Trump's Remain in Mexico was "arbitrary and capricious" and thus illegal. On Wednesday, CNN Newsroom host Jim Sciutto, the former Obama official, declared this to be an outrageous act of hypocrisy.
Talking with CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, Sciutto wondered, "I'm old enough to remember months ago when the conservative Court had an expansive view of presidential power and we saw that with many Trump administration policies. Now this. What happened?"
Biskupic agreed, claiming, "It was the first major confrontation between the Biden administration and the Roberts Supreme Court. It's not off to a good start. You mentioned the context of deference to the administration, especially in an area of immigration like this, something that touches on foreign policy."
Sciutto interrupted to add, "national security," to which Biskupic, "Exactly, and the justices not only shot it down, but shot it down quickly."
It was shot down so quickly because the Court declined to issue a stay, but litigation continues in the lower courts and it is possible the case reappears at the Supreme Court at a later date.
Biskupic eventually acknowledged that the Court used the same logic they used against Trump, when he tried to repeal DACA, but that just makes Sciutto's national security argument even more confusing. DACA isn't national security, but encouraging mass amounts of illegal immigration is?
Even worse for Sciutto is that he did not acknowledge the Court's ruling on DACA and the Trump administration. Still, heavily invested in the hypocrisy angle, Sciutto repeated his complaint: "Explain to me how -- the Supreme Court is supposed to be on principle and precedent. How can you have conservative justices who for years have been talking publicly about the president has these powers, we respect and support a broad executive power. How do they manage that?"
Biskupic concluded by again mentioning the DACA ruling, but claimed they're the different because Trump's policy was cruel and disruptive, but Biden's isn't, "So quite the opposite, Jim."
CNN executives also tweeted her article expressing the Biden point of view:
The Supreme Court gave Trump leeway on executive actions. Biden wants the same treatment https://t.co/mOoDzdpJbr
— Ram Ramgopal (@RamCNN) August 25, 2021
From @JoanBiskupic
The Supreme Court isn't being hypocritical, but the same media that cheered the DACA case is.
This segment of Sciutto scolding was sponsored by SoFi.
Here is a transcript for the August 25 show:
CNN
CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto
9:52 AM ET
JIM SCIUTTO: Here at home, the Supreme Court blocking the Biden Administration from ending a controversial Trump-era immigration rule. The so-called Remain in Mexico policy forces migrants to stay in Mexico as they await immigration court dates here in the U.S. The White House argued that ending the program would quote “result in irreparable harm.” CNN Supreme Court analysis Joan Biskupic joins me now. Joan, I'm old enough to remember months ago when the conservative Court had an expansive view of presidential power and we saw that with many Trump administration policies. Now this. What happened?
JOAN BISKUPIC: It was the first major confrontation between the Biden administration and the Roberts Supreme Court. It's not off to a good start. You mentioned the context of deference to the administration, especially in an area of immigration like this, something that touches on foreign policy.
SCIUTTO: National security.
BISKUPIC: Exactly, and the justices not only shot it down, but shot it down quickly. What the Biden administration said was please intervene, just pause this order from the lower court that has said that the Biden administration had to, was going to be compelled to revive its remain in Mexico policy and said “just wait, just wait” and not only did they shoot it down, they shot it down within an hour of the final filing from the Biden Administration and the contrast to what happened in former President Trump's early months on his immigration policy was really stark. One other thing I'd mention is the justices did this in a very brief order. The only three justices who protested this and said they would have granted the Biden administration's request were the three liberal justices. So this was definitely one that broke along familiar ideological lines, but the only thing they wrote in that short order was a reference to a ruling that they had issued last year in President Trump's DACA policy, the Dreamers program. But that was a case that had been -- where the justices said that President Trump had not fully explained why he wanted to roll back the Dreamers program. That was a case that had been briefed over a series of months, that was seriously considered, this was handled in a matter of hours, and it's such a different kind of policy.
SCIUTTO: Explain to me how -- the Supreme Court is supposed to be on principle and precedent. How can you have conservative justices who for years have been talking publicly about the president has these powers, we respect and support a broad executive power. How do they manage that?
BISKUPIC: I think it's all in what someone can argue, the eye of the conservative beholder here. I'm sure what the justices who wrote that order were thinking is that back in 2020, we told Trump he had to go back and justify his Dreamers program. But that was a domestic program where the consequences of ending what -- intervening there would have so disrupted so many young people's lives. Whereas this was not a domestic program. This is one that obviously, as you know, impinges on foreign policy, and the consequences would have been the opposite, frankly, and could be the opposite because of all the people being sent back to Mexico are having to remain in Mexico in dangerous conditions. So quite the opposite, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Goodness gracious. Joan Biskupic, always good to have you break it down.
