In a courtroom drama, the attention-grabbing clash between Florida and the Biden administration’s border policy took center stage as a U.S. appeals court panel exhibited a rift on the state’s right to challenge the “catch and release” approach.
During the oral arguments in Atlanta, two judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether Florida had the legal standing to initiate the lawsuit that led to a judge striking down the policy. The policy, implemented in 2021 and criticized by many Republicans as “catch and release,” aimed at releasing, rather than detaining, individuals crossing the U.S.-Mexican border illegally.
Notably, the judges expressed skepticism regarding Florida’s assertion that the policy directly impacted the state’s social service costs. The Biden administration policy, declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in March, faced criticism for violating U.S. immigration law by allowing widespread release of migrants awaiting deportation proceedings.
The district court judge had previously granted Florida legal standing based on an observed surge in non-citizen children enrolling in public schools after the policy’s adoption. However, during Friday’s proceedings, the appellate judges seemed doubtful about whether this enrollment spike alone constituted sufficient injury for the state to pursue legal action.
Circuit Judge Britt Grant and Circuit Judge Charles Wilson suggested that a Supreme Court ruling in June, which found Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a different Biden administration immigration policy, might also apply to Florida’s case. The judges raised questions about whether the issue was a political problem or a legal violation.
James Percival, representing Florida, argued that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data indicated 80,000 people granted parole under the policy were residing in Florida, making a connection to the increase in school enrollment plausible. However, the judges appeared divided on whether this data was conclusive evidence of a state injury.
Trump-appointed Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa appeared more sympathetic to Florida’s position, suggesting that the court could infer an injury to the state based on the observed influx in students. Yet, Joseph Darrow of the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Florida lacked evidence showing these individuals were using state services, resulting in a net cost to the state.
The legal debate primarily focused on procedural matters, with little discussion on the merits of Florida’s claims regarding the invalidity of the parole policy. The case, titled “Florida v. United States of America,” continues to unfold within the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving the outcome uncertain.
