The Detention of Immigration Policy: How States are Commandeering DHS Enforcement Guidelines

Authors

Brianna Riguera, University of Miami School of Law

Abstract

In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued immigration guidelines that de-emphasized detention and removal of non-citizens who, aside from being undocumented, are otherwise contributing members of communities across the United States. However, Arizona, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana challenged these guidelines, launching a nuanced legal dispute that concerned states standing under Article III, prosecutorial discretion, and nationwide preliminary injunctions. In United States v. Texas, the Court ruled 8-1 that the states lacked standing and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction, but the majority opinion failed to address the other legal issues that are pressing on a rife debate about the role of states in federal immigration enforcement.

This note contends that permitting states to meddle with federal immigration enforcement could lead to perilous outcomes and erode the integrity of the entire immigration system. Thousands of non-citizens, particularly those emigrating from Central and South America, are affected by the decision of the Supreme Court, and they require a more protective answer to the questions raised in United States v. Texas.

Recommended Citation

Brianna Riguera, The Detention of Immigration Policy: How States are Commandeering DHS Enforcement Guidelines, 55 U. MIA Inter-Am. L. Rev. 405 (2024)
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol55/iss2/5