By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court fought Wednesday over whether Republican State officials should be allowed to defend an immigrant rule that was drafted by the former President Donald Trump to ban permanent residence for those who are likely to require government benefits.

Before the court, 13 Republican state attorney generals led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich appealed a lower court ruling which rejected their efforts to defend Trump’s decision.

The administration of President Joe Biden dropped government defenses of the policy and prompted the state action. This rule became effective in February 2020.

Conservative and liberal justices were puzzled by the decision of the government to revoke the policy in March 2021, based on an Illinois federal judge’s Nov 2020 order in Illinois ordering that it be vacated nationally in another case. Instead of pursuing a formal rulemaking process in its replacement while it was in force.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested the Administration evaded the requirements of a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act. She also questioned whether the court should “green-light” such behaviour. The Conservative Chief Justice stated that circumventing the statute was “a very big deal.”

Some justices observed that presidents are not always willing to defend in court policies they don’t like.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that “it’s very much, not unprecedented.”

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who was involved in the Illinois case debate, wondered why justices didn’t address it directly.

The Supreme Court in a separate dispute https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-weighs-kentucky-officials-bid-defend-abortion-law-2021-10-12 is weighing whether to let Kentucky’s Republican attorney general defend a restrictive abortion law in his state that was struck down by lower courts, after its Democratic governor dropped the case.

The immigration case reached the justices six days after Biden’s administration announced https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/02/17/dhs-proposes-fair-and-humane-public-charge-rule a new “fair and humane” public charge rule that it said would avoid penalizing people for seeking medical attention and other services.

It is interesting to note that an existing federal rule was already created.

Brnovich was joined in the meeting by officials from Alabama and Arkansas as well Indiana, Kansas Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri Montana, Oklahoma South Carolina Texas, West Virginia, South Carolina and Texas.

U.S. guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalization, in a nursing home for example, at public expense would be barred from legal permanent residency, known as a “green card.”

Trump extended this policy to all those who are likely to get a larger range of non-cash federal benefits like the Medicaid Healthcare Program, Housing and Food Assistance for more than 12 months in any given 36-month period.

Based in San Francisco, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2020 that Trump’s policies impermissibly broadened the scope of what counts as a “public cost.” Similar rulings were made by other courts in the United States.

Brnovich, along with other Republican officials, argued they should be allowed to defend Trump’s rule. They claimed that it is estimated to save each state about $1 billion per year.

Court filings show that the government only issued three denials under the policy during its implementation. None of them have been reversed.

The Supreme Court last year dismissed another case https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/u-s-supreme-court-dismisses-trump-immigration-rule-dispute-idUSKBN2B123S from New York involving the legality of the rule at the urging of Biden’s administration.