Attorneys for Trump in New Mexico confront new scrutiny - By Morgan Lee Associated Press
Renewed efforts are underway to investigate and possibly discipline two attorneys that helped the Donald Trump campaign challenge New Mexico's 2020 presidential election results in the weeks prior to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
A group including former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez on Thursday asked the state Supreme Court to intervene and ensure an investigation in public view of the two attorneys who represented the Trump campaign for possible violations of standards of professional conduct.
The complaint cites possible violations of conduct rules by New Mexico-based attorney Mark J. Caruso and another attorney, Michael Smith, who lists a Texas address and a Washington law license. Caruso and Smith did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The state's chief disciplinary counsel and disciplinary board chairman previously determined in confidential proceedings that there was no violation of rules against frivolous litigation by Caruso and Smith.
The new complaint against the attorneys highlights recent testimony in the congressional hearings about Jan. 6, including the role of Santa Fe-based lawyer John Eastman as a chief architect of plans after the 2020 election to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence into rejecting the electoral college results. The California State Bar is investigating whether Eastman violated that state's law and ethics rules for attorneys.
Now-President Joe Biden won the 2020 vote in New Mexico by about 11 percentage points or nearly 100,000 ballots. But the Trump campaign still filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque that sought to invalidate absentee ballots cast at drop boxes and halt the certification of New Mexico's presidential electors.
New Mexico is among seven states where fake electors submitted false Electoral College certificates that declared Trump the true winner of the 2020 election. The new complaint says Caruso and Smith might have encouraged the fake electors.
"The relief that Mr. Caruso and Mr. Smith requested was tantamount to asking the federal court to overturn the election in New Mexico, despite a landslide victory for President Biden," says the lawsuit filed by Chavez and five other New Mexico attorneys. "Given the gravity of possible attorney involvement in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, the (New Mexico) Supreme Court, the Bar and the electorate all need any decision, either enforcing discipline or exonerating Mr. Caruso and Mr. Smith, to demonstrate deliberation and thoroughness, in a non-confidential and public manner."
New Mexico's office of the disciplinary counsel in March wrote that "Caruso and Smith's actions may warrant public hearings in some other forum, but not due to their actions within the confines of the rules of professional conduct."
A New York appeals court last year suspended the law license of Rudy Giuliani, the point man for pushing Trump's false claims about the 2020 election. The court said Giuliani's bid to discredit the election was so egregious that he poses "an immediate threat" to the public.
The Texas bar association is seeking to punish state Attorney General Ken Paxton, citing professional misconduct in his failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election based on bogus claims of fraud.
Archbishop: Mortgaging Santa Fe cathedral was only option - Associated Press
Archbishop John C. Wester is speaking about the decision to mortgage an iconic Santa Fe cathedral to meet a settlement agreement tied to church sex abuse victims.
The action was a last resort because "we pretty much sold everything we can, including my residency," Wester told the Santa Fe New Mexican on Thursday.
The archbishop sent letters to parishes last month informing them they would collectively need to borrow $12 million to pay for the settlements. That's when he broke the news about the cathedral. The archdiocese has to remit $65 million by Sept. 30 and a final $10 million by March 31 of next year, Wester wrote.
Still, the decision to use the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi, the heart of the diocese, shocked many New Mexico Catholics. Wester believes the love for the cathedral actually was a factor in the property being accepted as collateral.
"I'm not a lender, but I would imagine that they would see that as a good thing because obviously the archdiocese is going to do everything in its power to make good on our debt," Wester said.
The Archdiocese of Santa Fe filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case seeking protection from creditors in 2018 as sex abuse claims surged.
The chairman of a creditors committee negotiated an agreement on behalf of surviving victims and a tentative deal was reached in May.
It totals $121.5 million and would involve about 375 claimants.
It also includes a non-monetary agreement with the Archdiocese to create a public archive of documents regarding the history of the sexual abuse claims.
In New Mexico, some 74 priests have been deemed "credibly accused" of sexually assaulting children while assigned to parishes and schools by the Archdiocese, which covers central and northern New Mexico.
Established in the 1850s after the Mexican-American War, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe is one of the oldest in the nation. Wester has been the archbishop there since 2015.
While it was a tough decision to put up the cathedral, Wester said it was ultimately the right one.
"If you think about it, by mortgaging the cathedral we'll have fewer churches, if any, that we have to mortgage, so it's really mostly a practical thing," he said.
Biden discusses abortion access options with Dem governors - By Chris Megerian Associated Press
President Joe Biden told Democratic governors Friday that he is "looking at all the alternatives" for protecting abortion access following the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
One day after returning from international summits in Europe, Biden described the ruling as "tragic" and warned that Republicans could try to enact a nationwide ban on abortion if they retake control of Congress. He urged Democrats to elect at least two more senators so they could create an exception to the filibuster and codify in law the protections that had been provided under Roe v. Wade.
At least two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have blocked efforts to sidestep the filibuster. The party would need unanimous backing from the Senate's 48 Democrats and two allied independents, plus the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris, to make that rules change over solid GOP opposition.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul suggested that Biden consider having abortions performed at federal facilities like Veterans Affairs hospitals or military bases in states that restrict abortions.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Native American tribes, which have a level of sovereignty over their own lands, could also be valuable partners.
"We're in the process of looking at all the alternatives," Biden said.
However, he did not make any announcements. Some activists and Democrats have been frustrated by what they consider an overly cautious approach from the administration, especially since the court decision has been expected since a draft leaked nearly two months ago.
The justice's June 24 ruling overturned a 1973 decision that had declared a constitutional right to abortion. Each state will now determine whether the procedure can be performed.
FEMA releases largest update to its mobile app in a decade - By Drew Costley AP Science Writer
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is releasing the largest update to its mobile application in a decade, the agency announced today. FEMA is releasing the app at the beginning of a hurricane season that experts predict will be above average and a wildfire season that's already devastating, for example, In New Mexico.
The update makes the app more like social media and includes options for users to personalize the information they get when disasters hit. It also makes makes the app more user friendly to people with disabilities.
"We are better helping communities plan, protect and recover from disasters through clear, effective and relatable communication," FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell said in a statement.
The previous version of the app had a list of categories for notifications and looked like a directory or listserv. In the updated version, users can customize what they see based on their preferences and location.
For accessibility, the app now works with technologies like screen readers and voiceovers, is scaled for different screen sizes and has a more consistent layout. Gloria Huang, digital engagement and analytics branch chief for FEMA, said improvements for people with disabilities will continue.
"This is part of our commitment to always include accessibility as a key part of our design and development," rather than just trying to be compliant with disability laws, Huang told the Associated Press.
Huang said in the future the agency plans to make the app more accessible for people with visual impairments or reading disabilities and make some features usable offline.
The app also features a section called "Recover" where users can learn more about federal disaster declarations in their area that indicate federal assistance will be available and how to apply for it. Huang said the agency took feedback from disaster survivors because that was one major intended audience for the redesign.
The app mainly gets downloaded immediately before, during and after disasters, she said, which suggests that people are using it specifically as a tool to help them adapt and survive these events.
"It does seem that if you're going through recovery this could be a useful tool to organize potential FEMA aid," Samantha Montano, assistant professor of emergency management at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, told the AP.
Experts: US Court fractures decades of Native American law - By Felicia Fonseca And Lindsay Whitehurst Associated Press
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding state authority to prosecute some crimes on Native American land is fracturing decades of law built around the hard-fought principle that tribes have the right to govern themselves on their own territory, legal experts say.
The Wednesday ruling is a marked departure from federal Indian law and veers from the push to increase tribes' ability to prosecute all crimes on reservations — regardless of who is involved. It also cast tribes as part of states, rather than the sovereign nations they are, infuriating many across Indian Country.
"The majority (opinion) is not firmly rooted in the law that I have dedicated my life to studying and the history as I know it to be true," said Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese, an assistant law professor at Stanford University who is enrolled at Nambé Pueblo in New Mexico. "And that's just really concerning,"
Federal authorities largely maintained exclusive jurisdiction to investigate serious, violent crime on reservations across much of the U.S. when the suspect or victim is Native American. The 5-4 decision from the high court in a case out of Oklahoma means states will share in that authority when the suspect is not Native American and the victim is.
Criminal justice on tribal lands already is a tangled web, and the ruling likely will present new thorny questions about jurisdiction, possible triple jeopardy and how to tackle complicated crimes in remote areas where resources are stretched thin. States had power to prosecute crimes involving only non-Natives on reservations before this week's ruling.
"It will have an impact in Indian Country, so only the future will tell us if it's good or not," said Robert Miller, a law professor at Arizona State University and citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe. "Is it better to have more criminal prosecutions, more governments enforcing crimes or less?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a scathing dissent joined by the court's three liberal members, saying "one can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this Nation's promises even as we have failed today to do on our own."
Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. of the Cherokee Nation said the court "failed in its duty to honor this nation's promises, defied Congress's statutes and accepted the 'lawless disregard of the Cherokee's sovereignty.'"
It's unclear how the decision ultimately will play out for tribes, but there is precedent. Congress established a law in 1953 that's known as PL-280, partly to relieve the federal government of funding public safety on some reservations. The law resulted in state authority over crime in several states, including Alaska and California where about three-fifths of the 574 federally recognized tribes are based.
As in the decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, tribes did not consent. Neither Congress then nor the Supreme Court now funded the expansion of state authority on tribal land.
"That's far from the first time," said Lauren van Schilfgaarde, a member of Cochiti Pueblo in New Mexico who directs the Tribal Legal Development Clinic at the UCLA. "Federal Indian law is just littered with cases in which tribes were denied the opportunity to speak on their own behalf."
Federal authorities have long been criticized for declining to prosecute cases in Indian Country — roughly a third, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Authorities in PL-280 states also have been criticized for a lack of response to crime in Indian Country, where law enforcement officers often must travel long distances to investigate reported crimes.
Tribes asserted that the federal government — with which they have a political relationship — is the appropriate sovereign entity to handle criminal matters. Congress maintains control over Native American and Alaska Native affairs, which are overseen by the Department of Interior.
States have no such obligation to tribes.
Kevin Washburn, dean of the University of Iowa's law school, said it will be interesting to see how the priority question shakes out.
"That is, will feds take primacy or will state prosecutors take primacy in cases?" asked Washburn, who is Chickasaw and a former assistant Interior secretary for Indian Affairs. "And how do they decide who will be first or who will move at all?"
While the Supreme Court ruling is an expansion of power for states, it doesn't come with a similar increase for tribes. A 1978 ruling stripped tribes of any criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives on their reservations. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013 restored some of that authority in limited domestic violence cases and further expanded it earlier this year.
Less than 1% of federally recognized tribes in the U.S. have implemented that authority. It raises the possibility of tribes, the state and the feds prosecuting a suspect for the same offense. Another U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued last month said tribal members prosecuted in certain tribal courts also can be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court.
Most tribes can sentence convicted offenders to only a year in jail, regardless of the crime. A 2010 federal law increased tribes' sentencing authority to three years for a single crime. Few tribes have met the federal requirements to use that authority, including having public defenders and law-trained judges.
Oklahoma has its own unique history on tribal affairs, including a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as McGirt v. Oklahoma that said a large chunk of the eastern part of the state remains a Native American reservation. That ruling, written by Gorsuch, left the state unable to prosecute Native Americans accused of crimes on tribal lands that include most of Tulsa, the state's second-largest city with a population of about 413,000.
The Supreme Court refused to reconsider McGirt. Oklahoma filed a flurry of petitions related to the case, leading to the most recent decision on state power over crime on reservations that extends broadly across the U.S. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the state's interest lies in protecting all victims of crime.
Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum, a Republican, applauded the ruling and pledged to work with the state and the tribal nations "who are our partners in building a safe city."
Customer rates fuel debate around New Mexico power plant - By Susan Montoya Bryan Associated Press
With little ceremony, it was lights out Thursday for one of the two remaining units at a coal-fired power plant in northwestern New Mexico that has provided electricity for millions of customers in the southwestern U.S. for nearly a half-century.
Unit 1 at the San Juan Generating Station was shuttered as state regulators ordered New Mexico's largest utility to credit customers for millions of dollars in savings that will come from the plant's closure in September, when the final unit goes offline.
Public Service Co. of New Mexico had planned to wait to pass along the savings until its next rate case before the Public Regulation Commission, but regulators in ordering quicker action said they have a responsibility to ensure that rates charged to customers are fair, just and reasonable.
"PNM's new plan constitutes a moral hazard that, without the remediation ordered herein, threatens substantial and potentially irremediable harm to ratepayers," the commission's order reads.
The utility has vowed to appeal the decision, warning that applying a short-term credit would not be reflective of the costs to provide service to customers and that new rates proposed later this year would be much higher than they otherwise would have been.
PNM executives have said that such a "roller coaster" would significantly affect customers.
Pat Vincent-Collawn, PNM Resources chair and CEO, characterized the commission's decision as an arbitrary penalty, noting that the utility opted not to file for rate increases over the last two years as it navigated a transition to more renewable energy resources.
The battle over financing and customer rates related to the closure of the San Juan plant has been ongoing for months.
A need to keep part of the plant open longer than expected also raised questions about the timing for issuing bonds that would allow the utility to recover lost investments in the plant.
Regulators approved PNM's request to keep one unit open for an additional three months to avoid blackouts during the summer when air conditioners help drive up demand. The utility had warned that without San Juan, it wouldn't have the capacity to meet customer needs since solar and battery storage projects meant to replace the coal-fired plant were behind schedule.
Under the commission's ruling, utility customers would see a rate reduction of about 10%, or an annual savings to customers of about $94 million, when the plant closes in September. The order also prevents PNM from collecting operating costs since the plant would no longer serve customers.
The utility has denied that its plans amount to double dipping or that customers will miss out on savings.
The push in recent years for utilities to provide more electricity from non-fossil fuel resources has been driven by state mandates and tougher federal requirements aimed at reducing pollution.
The Biden administration has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030, and New Mexico's mandates call for carbon-free generation within the next two decades. Environmentalists voiced concerns Thursday about meeting those goals given a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that limits how the nation's main air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
An inventory done earlier this year by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that 85% of the scheduled retirements in 2022 involve coal-fired power plants, followed by natural gas and nuclear.
Still, there have been growing pains in New Mexico and elsewhere as demand outpaces the ability to construct more solar and battery storage operations. PNM has blamed supply chain issues for its delays, and in California, fossil fuel plants might have to be tapped to avoid blackouts.
Most of the coal-fired plants making up the remaining fleet in the U.S. were built in the 1970s and 1980s.
The San Juan plant and its towering concrete stacks have been part of northwestern New Mexico's skyline since the 1970s. It has powered parts of Arizona, California and New Mexico over the years.
In the past week, workers have gathered for lunch and cake to mark the end of Unit 1.
Some workers had exit interviews Thursday, and many were holding out hope that the city of Farmington would be successful in its effort to keep the plant open as part of a proposed carbon capture project that has received some federal funding.
Justin Yazzie marked his last evening shift, opting for retirement after working for the utility for 44 years. He said it was a good job that allowed him to provide for his family.
"My heart is really hurting for the younger people. They don't have the same opportunity that I had and we sure need it now," he said, pointing to the growing pressure on oil and gas operations and other industries that have historically been the drivers of economic development in more rural areas in New Mexico and elsewhere in the West.
First oil sales on public land under Biden bring $22 million - Associated Press, KUNM News
Energy companies bid more than $22 million to secure drilling rights on about 110 square miles of public lands in the western U.S. on Thursday, during the first onshore oil and natural gas lease sales since President Joe Biden took office.
Leases on about 90 square miles went unsold in the U.S. Bureau Land Management online auctions that included parcels of federal lands in seven states.
Oil and gas produced from the leases will be subject to a royalty rate of 18.75%. That's up from 12.5% and the first royalty increase since the 1920s.
About 200 square miles of federal lands had been offered for lease in eight western states. Most of those sold were in Wyoming, where companies paid more than $13 million for parcels totaling about 105 square miles.
A planned sale in Utah for a single, 160-acre parcel did not happen and there was no immediate explanation from federal officials.
The auctions came as federal officials try to balance efforts to fight climate change against pressure to bring down high gas prices.
Biden faces calls from fellow Democrats to do more to curb fossil fuel emissions that are heating the planet, even as he's being pushed by Republicans to expand U.S. crude production.
Critics of the leasing program pointed to unsold parcels in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and Nevada as further evidence oil companies have enough leases and drilling permits already stockpiled to last them for years.
"It is apparent that the calls from oil and gas CEOs for more drilling on public lands were just a distraction as they aim to maximize their profits," said Pegah Jalali, an environmental policy analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Institute.
But with several prior lease sales still tied up in court challenges from environmentalists, some companies had concerns going into the sale that they might not be able to drill on leases they acquired, said Ryan McConnaughey, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. Those worries could have dampened interest in the latest sale, he said.
"They still haven't issued leases from 2020," McConnaughey said. "They paid upfront and if they can't get to those leases, they can't produce from them. That's a huge tie up of capital resources."
Oil production increased in the U.S. in recent months, but it's still well below pre-pandemic levels. Companies have been hesitant to expand drilling too quickly because of uncertainty over how long high prices will continue.
Biden suspended new leasing just a week after taking office in January 2021. A federal judge in Louisiana ordered the sales to resume, saying Interior officials had offered no "rational explanation" for canceling them.
The government held an offshore lease auction in the Gulf of Mexico in November. A court canceled that sale before the leases were issued.
New Mexico lawmaker enters a no-contest plea in DWI case - Associated Press
State Rep. Georgene Louis, who was arrested by Santa Fe police in the final days of a legislative session in February and charged with drunken driving, has entered a no-contest plea.
The Albuquerque Journal reported Thursday that Louis must complete 24 hours of community service.
Her plea deal is for DWI, not aggravated DWI, and other charges were dropped after she provided proof of insurance and registration, according to the newspaper.
The Journal said court documents show Louis also must comply with drug and alcohol screening, attend an education program on DWI laws and install an ignition interlock device in her vehicle.
Santa Fe police said breathalyzer tests showed Louis had a 0.17% blood alcohol content – more than twice New Mexico's presumed level of intoxication — when she was stopped by an officer Feb. 13 for driving her car 17 mph over the posted speed limit.
Louis, a 44-year-old Democrat who represents part of Albuquerque's west side and has held the House District 26 seat since 2013, is not running for a sixth term in November.
She was one of five Native American legislators in the New Mexico House of Representatives as of 2015.
Supreme Court: Biden can end Trump-era asylum policy - By Jessica Gresko And Elliot Spagat Associated Press
The Supreme Court said Thursday the Biden administration can scrap a Trump-era immigration policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration courts, a victory for a White House that still must address the growing number of people seeking refuge at America's southern border.
The ruling will have little immediate impact because the policy has been seldom applied under President Joe Biden, who reinstated it under a court order in December. It was his predecessor, Donald Trump, who launched the "Remain in Mexico" policy and fully embraced it.
Two conservative justices joined their three liberal colleagues in siding with the White House.
Under Trump, the program enrolled about 70,000 people after it was launched in 2019. Biden suspended the policy, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office in January 2021. But lower courts ordered it reinstated in response to a lawsuit from Republican-led Texas and Missouri.
Dynamics at the border have changed considerably since "Remain in Mexico" was a centerpiece of Trump's border policies.
Another Trump-era policy that remains in effect and was not a part of Thursday's ruling allows the government to quickly expel migrants without a chance to ask for asylum, casting aside U.S. law and an international treaty on grounds of containing the spread of COVID-19. There have been more than 2 million expulsions since the pandemic-era rule, known as Title 42 authority, was introduced in March 2020.
In May, a federal judge in Louisiana prevented the Biden administration from halting Title 42, in a case that may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
The court's decision Thursday was released on the same day that the justices dealt the administration a blow in an important environmental case about the nation's main anti-air pollution law. That ruling could complicate the administration's plans to combat climate change.
The heart of the legal fight in the immigration case was about whether U.S. immigration authorities, with far less detention capacity than needed, had to send people to Mexico or whether those authorities had the discretion under federal law to release asylum-seekers into the United States while they awaited their hearings.
After Biden's suspension of the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended it in June 2021. In October, the department produced additional justifications for the policy's demise, but that was to no avail in the courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an appeals court "erred in holding that the" federal Immigration and Nationality Act "required the Government to continue implementing MPP." Joining the majority opinion was fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump-appointee, as well as liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Kavanaugh also wrote separately and noted that in general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both releasing asylum-seekers into the United States and sending them back to Mexico "are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes."
The Department of Homeland Security said it welcomed the ruling and that it will "continue our efforts to terminate the program as soon as legally permissible." It added in a statement that it continues to enforce Title 42 and "our immigration laws at the border and administer consequences for those who enter unlawfully."
Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration expert, said the Biden administration does not need to take any further action to end the policy, but that Texas and Missouri can pursue a challenge over whether the administration followed appropriate procedure in ending the program.
In a dissent for himself and fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the practice of releasing "untold numbers of aliens" into the United States "violates the clear terms of the law, but the court looks the other way." Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she agreed with the majority's analysis of the merits of the case but would have sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that the decision was "unfortunate." He argued it would make "the border crisis worse. But it's not the end. I'll keep pressing forward and focus on securing the border and keeping our communities safe in the dozen other immigration suits I'm litigating in court." Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said the decision would "only embolden the Biden Administration's open border policies."
Since December, the administration has registered only 7,259 migrants in "Remain in Mexico." U.S. authorities stopped migrants 1.2 million times on the Mexico border from December through May, illustrating the policy's limited impact under Biden.
About 6 of every 10 people in the program are Nicaraguans. The administration has said it would apply the policy to nationalities that are less likely to be subject to the broader Title 42 policy. Strained diplomatic relations with Nicaragua makes it extremely difficult for the U.S. to expel people back to their homeland under Title 42.
Immigrant advocates acknowledged that a relatively small number of asylum seekers arriving on the southwest border are affected by the MPP program with which the court ruling dealt. Still, advocates and Democrats were among those cheering the decision as were those waiting in Mexico.
Oscar Rene Cruz, a taxi driver from Nicaragua who is in a Salvation Army Shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, said after the ruling: "We are all very happy, waiting to see what is going to happen now with us, we know the program has finished but we haven't been told what they are going to do with us."
Cruz added: "I wish this will be over soon. Nobody wants to stay here" in Mexico.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement that those "fleeing violence and persecution to seek asylum —as they are entitled to by law —should not be forced to remain in places that have been deemed dangerous and unsafe while they wait for their day in court."
Jacob Lichtenbaum, staff attorney for the immigrant rights group CASA in Maryland, called the ruling a "major victory for safety, compassion, and the rule of law."
But Rep. John Katko of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the program was a critical tool to help manage arrivals on the southwest border and the current administration lacks a plan to address the issue.
The case is Biden v. Texas, 21-954.