> Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict. Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure, in justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes. Just as this Court a few years ago declined to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly compel greater Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws, see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670; Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. 785, we now likewise must decline to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws. Consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the stay.
I think pretty telling is the court's need to constantly address itself and it's legitimacy in these documents lately.
I'm kind of on a divided opinion on this. This is clearly wrong and bad for America. But it's what the law says, the legislature isn't going to change it, and it's what America voted for. There are deep flaws in our democracy at a structural, legal level and I cannot reasonably expect the Judicial branch to go outside of their lane and solve them anymore than I think a couple of Supreme Court decisions could have avoided the civil war.