Politico

Law enforcement officials confirmed on Wednesday that cocaine was found at the White House over the weekend.

But one official familiar with the investigation cautioned that the source of the drug was unlikely to be determined given that it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing.

The small amount of cocaine was found in a cubby area for storing electronics within the West Exec basement entryway into the West Wing, where many people have authorized access, including staff or visitors coming in for West Wing tours.

Asked what the chances are of finding the culprit, the official said “it’s gonna be very difficult for us to do that because of where it was.”

“Even if there were surveillance cameras, unless you were waving it around, it may not have been caught” by the cameras, added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given that it’s an ongoing investigation. “It’s a bit of a thoroughfare. People walk by there all the time.”

A uniformed division officer of the Secret Service found the cocaine on Sunday night around 6 p.m. Since the officer didn’t know what the substance was, the security posture at the White House was temporarily escalated. The D.C. Fire Department was called, and the material was deemed non-hazardous and sent to a central lab for additional testing.

The Secret Service is leading the investigation, with the FBI assisting.

President Joe Biden on Tuesday again called for further gun restrictions following a string of deadly shootings as the nation celebrates Independence Day.

“Today, Jill and I grieve for those who have lost their lives,” Biden said in a statement. “We pray for the day when our communities will be free from gun violence.”

Over the past few days, shootings inPhiladelphia;Fort Worth, Texas;Baltimore;and Wichita, Kan. have left at least nine people dead and dozens of others injured. As of mid-June, the U.S. has seen the most mass killings and deaths up to that point in a single year.

Biden invoked last year’s Fourth of July when a gunman in Highland Park, Ill.,used an assault rifle to kill seven people during a holiday parade. In the year since, state lawmakers have worked to prevent further mass shootings,successfully banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines across Illinois in January.

While the lawmakers’ efforts will save lives, Biden said, “much more must be done in Illinois and across America to address the epidemic of gun violence that is tearing our communities apart.”

Biden has been a staunch advocate for stricter gun laws, saying in early May that he would “immediately”sign new gun legislation in the wake of a deadly shooting in Allen, Texas. In March, the president tried to bypass Congress to tighten gun measures, signing an executive order aimed at expanding background checks.

In addition to bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, Biden on Tuesday called for safe gun storage requirements, the end of gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability and universal background checks.

“I urge other states to follow Illinois’ lead, and continue to call upon Republican lawmakers in Congress to come to the table on meaningful, commonsense reforms that the American people support,” he said.

An overwhelming percentage of Americans support further restrictions on guns, according to aFox News poll released in April. That includes 87 percent of those surveyed supporting a requirement for criminal background checks for all gun buyers and 61 percent supporting a ban on assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons.

Numerous gun measures have repeatedly stalled in Congress in recent decades, though legislation was approved in June 2022 and signed by Biden that was intended to keep guns out of the hands of people experiencing mental health crises.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Speaking before the largest Pride celebration in White House history this month, President Joe Biden looked out at the crowd and marveled at the people in front of him. He recognized “leaders across our administration,” like Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, and took time to acknowledge his ambassador to Switzerland, Scott Miller, among other LGBTQ luminaries.

Along the way, Biden dropped another name, of a relatively obscure Delaware state senator.

“I am proud,” Biden said, “that back home in Delaware [we have] the first transgender state legislator in American history, Sarah McBride.”

Five days later, at the signing of an executive order “advancing protections for LGBTQI+ Individuals,” Biden mentioned McBride again. “Sarah,” he said, “you’re — wonderful to see you, kiddo.”

The mentions were odes to a person who, people in Biden’s orbit and others active in the advocacy space say, has directly shaped Biden’s personal and political evolution on transgender issues.

McBride’s close ties with the Biden family date back over 15 years. Last week, the country’s first transgender state senator announced she’s running for Delaware’s open House seat, in a bid that could make her the first openly transgender member of the U.S. Congress.

As Republican-led states pass a growing number of laws restricting access to medical care for minors and the country sees a rise in anti-LGBTQ hate and extremism, Biden has leaned on McBride, calling her to discuss the current moment in American politics. Over time, she has helped turn one of the most devout Catholic presidents in U.S. history into an unlikely champion of LGBTQ causes.

“We’ve talked about how scared people are around the country, and I’ve shared with him just how much it means to people when they see him speak up and act out to protect LGBTQ rights and LGBTQ people,” McBride said in an interview with POLITICO.

McBride’s relationship with the Biden family began in 2006. She was a high schooler when she worked for Beau Biden’s attorney general campaign, establishing a close connection to the eldest Biden son. McBride worked for Beau Biden again in 2010 as a member of his small reelection campaign team. She was his “body person” for most of that summer, driving him up and down the state to campaign events.

In 2012, while serving as student body president at American University, McBride came out as transgender. She shared her coming out note on Facebook and in the student newspaper, unsure of what it would mean for her future in politics.

“It was before what Time Magazine called the ‘transgender tipping point,’” McBride said. “I just didn’t know how Delaware, Delaware politics would respond to an out transgender person.”

That night, Beau Biden gave her a call. He told her she was still a “part of the Biden family.”

McBride went on to intern in the White House Office Of Public Engagement later that year, working with the Office Of Violence Prevention and becoming the first openly transgender person to work in the White House. She saw then-Vice President Biden for the first time since coming out that next January, at a celebration of the Naval Observatory.

Biden walked up to McBride and asked her how she was doing.

“Are you happy?” he asked.

He then told her that Beau was so proud of her, and gave her a hug.

For McBride, these moments of acceptance, particularly from a politician she looked up to as a young kid interested in a political career, were vital. As a 10-year-old, she ran into Biden for the first time at a local pizza shop. Now the vice president stood before her, affirming his support at a time when politicians weren’t embracing transgender people.

These moments also weren’t insignificant for Biden, who was in turn greatly affected by McBride’s coming out. But she said the Biden administration’s journey and commitment today to LGBTQ equality can’t be explained without Beau Biden.

“I truly think that part of this is this president feeling closer to his son, and his son’s legacy,” McBride said.

In 2013, Beau Biden joined Democratic Delaware Gov. Jack Markell in backing marriage equality legislation. But what was seen as a bigger deal among LGBTQ advocates at the time was his support for trans people. He urged state lawmakers to pass legislation to establish protections based on gender identity, said Lisa Goodman, founding president of Equality Delaware.

Beau Biden made videos for her organization backing transgender rights, as arguments and attacks began to emerge about transgender people and restrooms.

“I can’t tell you the people I’ve spoken to over the years who have sat down with me and said — including, frankly, members of my own extended family — things like, ‘I never understood gay people. I never really was on board until my son, daughter, niece, nephew, brother, came out to me,’” Goodman said. “That’s the single most powerful thing you can do, is come out either as LGBTQ or as an ally.”

“And I think Sarah had a huge effect on both of them.”

The 80-year-old president, who as a senator voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, has been ahead of the political curve on LGBTQ issues for the last decade. In 2012, the same year McBride came out, Biden famously disclosed his support for same-sex marriage before his boss at the time, President Barack Obama. Last year, he signed the Respect for Marriage Act, cementing his role as a central figure in the movement.

But his message on transgender issues has also been forward-leaning, McBride said, noting that Biden, also in 2012, called transgender discrimination the “civil rights issue of our time.” In the foreword for McBride’s 2018 book, “Tomorrow will be different: Love, loss and the fight for trans equality,” Biden wrote: “It’s about freeing the soul of America from the constraints of bigotry, hate, and fear, and opening people’s hearts and minds to what binds us all together.”

Republicans have seized on transgender issues as a base motivator. In 2023 alone, nearly 500 pieces of legislation targeting LGBTQ rights have been introduced across state legislatures. Former President Donald Trump has vowed to punish doctors who provide gender-affirming care if reelected, and to reinstate his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military that Biden overturned.

A White House official pointed to numerous actions Biden has taken as president, including his administration’s efforts to strengthen protections for transgender youth in education and health care through rulemaking. The White House and federal agency officials have also met with families affected by anti-LGBTQ state laws, transgender youth have visited the White House to share their stories, and Biden has spoken directly to transgender youth in all three of his addresses before a joint session of Congress.

Earlier this month, responding to a question about anti-LGBTQ and anti-transgender laws popping up across the country, Biden urged Congress to pass the Equality Act and condemned “prejudiced” and “unjustified” attacks on LGBTQ Americans.

“Our fight is far, far from over because we have some hysterical and, I would argue, prejudiced people who are engaged in all of what you see going on around the country,” Biden said. “It’s an appeal to fear, and it’s an appeal that is totally, thoroughly unjustified and ugly.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that President Joe Biden’s effort to erase roughly $400 billion of student debt was an illegal use of executive power.

Read the ruling here.

Kevin McCarthy’s survival as speaker may depend on whether he pulls off a difficult summertime task: bridging the huge gap between his ultraconservatives and GOP centrists on government funding.

So far, his efforts are falling short.

The California Republican has to clear a dozen spending bills, altogether worth over $1 trillion, with near-total unanimity in the GOP — votes that even his allies say he doesn’t have right now. Then he’ll have to shift gears and cut another deal with the White House without triggering the first real attempt by the House GOP’s right flank to strip him of the speakership.

McCarthy has embraced conservative demands in recent weeks, with appropriators setting spending levels below those he arranged with President Joe Biden. But despite major concessions from leadership, hardliners have already warned they aren’t sold on the funding bills.

On the other side, McCarthy allies are doubtful that those conservatives will ever support a final spending deal that requires Biden’s and Senate Democrats’ support. Some centrists are growing tired of ultimatums from members they don’t see as team players.

“We’ve got to figure out how we get 218 votes out of a pile of 222 Republicans. And that means we have to operate in a different fashion,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior spending leader, summing up the challenge of packing bills with GOP goodies that may ultimately be stripped out.

At the center of it all is Congress’ premiere parlor game: testing McCarthy’s hold on his gavel. If the House GOP can’t complete their ambitious lineup of spending bills, it will mark a failure of one of McCarthy’s biggest promises during the speaker’s race. And several Republicans are privately worried that they’re inevitably headed toward a high-drama government shutdown after the funding deadline Sept. 30.

“My concern is … we’re not there as a conference yet,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee.

Hern said he raised that exact point — the shortage of GOP votes to pass most of its own spending bills — during a recent meeting between McCarthy and the other representatives of House Republican factions, including the Freedom Caucus and moderates.

He’s not the only one. Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), a member of the former group, recalled telling party leadership during a separate meeting that they would have a “very difficult time” getting enough GOP votes for spending bills under leadership’s current plan. That approach includes counting $115 billion in spending clawbacks as cuts to overall spending, despite conservative demands to consider that money separately from efforts to chop funding.

“There is the spending level, which we need to reduce. And then there are policy riders to get Republican priorities in place in the funding of this government,” said Good, who described the GOP’s fiscal austerity push as “a very modest $130 billion cut.”

GOP leadership has homed its pitch to its rebel group — noting that many of its 12 funding bills will fall well below fiscal 2022 levels while boosting party priorities like veterans and defense spending. And top Republicans have added red-meat provisions, too, like leaving out funds for the FBI’s hunt for a headquarters, limiting the availability of mail-order abortion drugs and banning funds to “promote or advance critical race theory.”

That has hardly kiboshed the warning signs from the conference’s most conservative members. Good is one of 11 Republicans who shut down the House floor in the wake of the debt deal and are already putting that hardball strategy on the table again, calling on leadership and the rest of the conference to bend further in their direction on spending.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), another of the 11, replied succinctly when asked whether ultraconservatives could grind the floor to a halt again by rejecting rules for GOP priorities: “Sure could.”

But Burchett credited McCarthy with understanding “how serious folks are” and bringing together the various contingents within the party, quipping: “We got more groups than the Baptist church.”

Still, those tactics have only fueled frustration in other corners of the conference. Some of the GOP’s more center-right members are already warning that loading up their spending bills with conservative policies considered anathematic to Democrats misses the bigger picture. Those centrists argue that the same right flank party leaders are currently trying to pacify is unlikely to support whatever the final deal is with the White House.

“I think we’re missing the obvious — at some point, you’ve got to make a deal with the Senate and the president, and we’ll be back to the debt-ceiling limit numbers. And then some guys on the right will be all mad. But that is how the system of government works,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said.

Similar sentiment is coming from many of the Republicans tasked with shaping the government funding bills.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) predicted that any final government funding deal will “look a lot different” than the House GOP bills, resulting in Republicans losing “a lot of votes on our side, because it is just not going to be enough.”

“I do think that sometimes we get caught up in our own echo chamber and we fail to recognize that we’re just one part of the discussion piece,” he added.

The spending push comes back to a critical McCarthy pledge during his speaker’s race. The now-speaker vowed to take a back-to-the-basics approach to government funding bills this time around, avoiding a trillion-dollar catch-all measure that his predecessor once called “a crap sandwich.”

Most Republicans say it’s unlikely that the spending debacle will be entirely solved by the funding deadline Sept. 30. Instead, many believe Congress will probably wind up with its usual post-Christmas deadline. Few are ruling out a September showdown entirely, however, since both parties would need to agree on a short-term extension until Jan. 1 — when the debt deal could trigger some small automatic cuts.

“You have kind of a three-month no-man’s land,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) about the period between the end of September and start of January. “I assume if there is no deal or agreement or approps aren’t passed, … then on Oct. 1, you either have a short-term [continuing resolution] or you don’t have funding.”

In the meantime, to help get members on one page, McCarthy and his allies have also kicked off something of an educational campaign, in which GOP appropriators can show where virtually every dollar is spent in their bills — and why fellow Republicans should support it.

“You want a secure border, you got to agree about the things it’s going to take,” Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) said of his outreach to members about what’s in his Department of Homeland Security funding bill. That measure includes more money than in past years to fund priorities like added immigrant detention beds.

“That’s why it’s more important to educate everybody in the process and how it works,” Joyce added. “It’s not like us just making stuff up, or just in collusion with the Senate.”

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Last weekend, as President Joe Biden and top national security aides watched a dramatic — and ultimately, short lived — coup attempt play out in Russia, officials decided they needed to communicate directly with the Kremlin.

Using a regular diplomatic channel, administration officials told counterparts inside President Vladimir Putin’s suddenly wobbly government that the White House viewed the mutiny led by the Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin as an internal Russian matter. They would not be making any changes to U.S. or NATO troop positions. There was no need, the U.S. side made clear, for any direct talks between Biden and Putin or other high-ranking officials.

“Everything was done to ensure that Russia didn’t see an American hand in all this,” said Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group who first wrote about the backchannel conversation in his weekly client newsletter. “From a U.S. perspective, that was actually quite useful, being able to communicate to Moscow that America’s policy is to defend Ukraine and help them get their land back but that it’s not regime change or destroying Russia.”

An administration official confirmed the backchanneling with Moscow to West Wing Playbook, emphasizing that such open channels are routinely used when officials on either side have important messages to convey. While Prigozhin’s troops were marching through Rostov in southern Russia and on toward Moscow, the State Department urged all diplomatic personnel against leaving their diplomatic compounds, a move the U.S. official said was purely precautionary and not a reaction to any specific threat.

And Biden, in his conversations with other NATO leaders this weekend, sought agreement that the West would be best served by remaining mostly silent, our colleagues Alex Ward, Lili Bayer, Suzanne Lynch and Christina Gallardo reported this week.

But now, with Russia so clearly unstable, a Ukrainian counter-offensive struggling to gain ground and the annual meeting of NATO leaders just weeks away, senior U.S. officials are still trying to figure out what happened over the weekend in addition to gleaning clues from Putin’s response.

One area of examination: why Putin cut a deal with Prigozhin, a rarity for the Russian dictator. The aborted mutiny appeared to reveal cracks within the Kremlin and military hierarchy, and the U.S. is waiting to see if Putin will, for lack of a better term, purge the problems. Some analysts have speculated that Putin’s relative restraint so far may be a sign of a deeper rationality, while others worry a weakened Putin could turn more desperate and reckless.

Biden said Tuesday that “it’s hard to tell” whether Putin was dramatically weakened by the plot, expressing the generally cautious view of his national security team. But U.S. officials suspect that one motivation for Putin making the deal was to avoid widespread violence on Russian soil.

That has led some to wonder if they could push the envelope further in supplying Ukraine with more lethal, longer-range weapons — including F-16s. Their thought: Putin’s red line might be softer than anticipated and he might choose not to escalate for fear of widening the conflict, according to two people familiar with the deliberations. But they cautioned that no decision has been made.

“I think there’s some opportunity there,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said when asked Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about whether the chaos inside Russia’s military could boost Ukraine’s counter-offensive. But, he added, U.S. officials were still waiting to see how things play out.

The cost on the Russian people is also going to increase, analysts believe. If the Wagner Group is sidelined, Putin loses a group of mercenaries on which he could lean. Putin may now need to turn to more conscripted civilians, risking discontent at home.

The fragility of Putin’s regime also has some U.S. officials contemplating more seriously the possibility of a post-Putin Russia — and a nuclear stockpile controlled by a leader who could be even more destabilizing to the global order.

In the short term, it’s clear that the NATO summit being held in two weeks in Lithuania will take on new urgency. Blinken teased a “robust package for Ukraine” to be unveiled by NATO leaders in Vilnius. But it’s also possible that calculations within the alliance about Ukraine’s eventual accession could be changing given Russia’s military weakness and the very real prospect of a civil war within its borders.

“It’s still a high bar [for Ukraine’s potential NATO membership] because all 31 [NATO] countries have to say yes,” Bremmer said. “But this will help. The West now has less reason to worry about Putin’s supposed red lines, and all the more reason to worry about how to prepare for a destabilized, unpredictable situation in Russia.”

President Joe Biden is tying his political fate to the U.S. economy — recessionary risks be damned.

The White House this week is going all in on a campaign to claim credit for the nation’s post-pandemic resurgence, touting an economic vision that aides see as so central to Biden’s presidential legacy they’ve gone as far as giving it a name: “Bidenomics.”

It’s a fresh messaging push that marks the most aggressive attempt yet by Biden world to convince the public that the economy is, in fact, good. It’s also a major bet that the bottom won’t fall out, at least through November 2024.

“They’re going to wrap their arms fully around the economic strategy and economic results,” said Seth Harris, the former deputy director of Biden’s National Economic Council. “And I think their expectation is that there will not be a recession.”

The question of how strongly to tout the economy has vexed virtually every president running during a time of recovery. Boast too hard and voters may perceive you as out of touch. Stay too quiet and risk the perception of taking hold that times are bleak and getting bleaker.

Biden has pledged to avoid the missteps of his former boss, Barack Obama. He was reluctant in real time to play up good economic news after voters recoiled at his first attempt to do so though an infamous 2010 tour dubbed “Recovery Summer.” The current effort is an implicit recognition that Biden has more work to do.

Key to the sales pitch, which will include a speech Wednesday by the president formally outlining his economic case, is defining what exactly Bidenomics is. Ahead of the address, White House aides described the term as a broad collection of policies aimed at using government muscle to revive and reshape the economy to help the middle class. They pointed to a range of efforts, including bolstering manufacturing investments, expanding high speed internet access and cracking down on industries that charge so-called junk fees.

If the definition is a bit all-encompassing, the implication is clear. Biden’s political fortunes, his top aides believe, will hinge on how effectively they can hammer home the idea that voters are better off than just a few years ago — and have the Biden administration to thank for it.

“There’s going to be billions of dollars spent laying out what Joe Biden has done,” said one Democratic national political consultant familiar with the campaign strategy. “All these things are incredibly popular. But people don’t really know about them.”

The decision to lean fully into Biden’s economic record comes even as the administration faces persistent challenges that could threaten to derail the sunny story it’s trying to sell.

High inflation dogged the White House through much of last year, souring voters on an otherwise encouraging economic picture and sowing doubts about Biden’s agenda. Though the price hikes now show signs of easing, aides acknowledge inflation remains too high.

The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is in the midst of trying to orchestrate a soft landing to ease inflation that’s likely to require still more interest rate hikes. Even if those moves don’t tip the U.S. into a painful recession, as economists initially predicted, few believe the economy can sustain its red-hot job creation pace into a third consecutive year.

“The strategy certainly makes sense,” Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said of Biden lashing himself to an economy defined so far by rising wages and near record-low unemployment. “The risk is obviously that that will not always be the case — and it’s a pretty long road until 2024.”

Biden advisers privately acknowledge the hazards of centering an economy that’s likely closer to a peak than a valley, especially more than a year out from Election Day. Branding whatever happens over these next 17 months as the result of Bidenomics reflects an even bigger gamble, opening Biden up to a raft of attacks from his Republican opponents if the U.S. hits a downturn.

The administration’s attempt to label Biden’s economic legacy just more than halfway through his first term has struck even some Democrats as premature, and a potential unforced error.

“Bidenomics sounds like bad math,” said a Democratic strategist who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “Bidenomics sounds like when my parents tell me something costs $2 and it’s $20.”

But Biden and his top aides have grown increasingly confident they can sidestep a deep recession, encouraged by data that shows the economy continues to add jobs even as interest rates rise and inflation cools.

“I don’t think anybody in the White House would say there’s zero chance of a recession, but I think their view is that at worst, it would be a fairly shallow and fairly short recession,” Harris said. “That’s a risk they’re willing to bear because the rest of the economic news has been so strong.”

Inside the administration, officials described a straightforward set of calculations contributing to the Bidenomics push. Presidents are typically defined by the state of the economy whether they like it or not, making Biden’s choice less whether he’ll run on his economic record but how he frames that record for voters.

That means taking advantage of the economy’s current strength to spotlight concrete progress areas, one White House official said, while also laying out Biden’s vision for building on that foundation.

In addition to Wednesday’s speech, Biden is slated to hold several events this week. It is part of an “Investing in America” blitz that will see senior officials dispatched across the country to highlight the on-the-ground impact of the administration’s investments. The White House has also seized on other tangible, real-world projects — like the I-95 highway repair in Philadelphia and the Commerce Department’s Monday rollout of new funding to bolster broadband internet access — to demonstrate the impact its policies are having on people’s lives.

“Better pay and other Biden Administration policies have helped put middle class Americans into stronger financial position than they were in pre-pandemic—despite the global challenge of inflation,” White House senior advisers Anita Dunn and Mike Donilon wrote in a memo this week making the case for Biden’s economic agenda.

The “Bidenomics” push also grew out of aides’ frustration with the portrayal of the economy on cable news and in the press. They’ve complained that the media consistently overstated the risks of a recession and undersold the merits of Biden’s suite of major legislative accomplishments. The new branding, they hope, will drive a fresh evaluation of Biden’s record more than two years into the presidency.

In the meantime, Biden allies are already looking ahead to the reelection campaign. They hope the new branding will provide a favorable contrast to the record of GOP frontrunner and former president Donald Trump, as well as a rebuke to the trickle-down Reaganomics embraced more broadly across the Republican presidential field.

More immediately, Democrats inside and outside the administration concede they have substantial work ahead in selling Biden’s vision to voters still skeptical of the economy’s trajectory — and in many cases oblivious to the administration’s accomplishments.

Confidence in the economy remains low. Arecent Pew Research Center survey ranked inflation as the public’s top concern, with Biden’s overall job approval mired at 35 percent.

Perhaps even more concerning for the administration, the same poll found Americans trust Republicans on the economy more than Democrats by a wide margin.

“You have a remarkable employment picture,” said Will Marshall, president of the Democratic think tank Progressive Policy Institute. “But there’s no doubting the mood of economic pessimism that hangs over the country still, and that’s what has to be changed.”

That’s a deficit, Marshall added, that will require concerted effort to make up, and a forceful message from Biden and his advisers that goes well beyond a simple rebrand.

“The White House needs to make sure people know that the president understands the pain they’re feeling, understands the bite that inflation is putting on their disposable income,” he said. “And then you have to give them a narrative of success.”

Holly Otterbein contributed reporting

States can’t use the federal courts to try to force the federal government to arrest and deport more people who are in the country illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The 8-1 decision could cut down on a flood of lawsuits recent administrations have faced from state attorneys general and governors who disagree with Washington on immigration and crime policy.

The high court’s ruling found that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to pursue litigation challenging immigration enforcement priorities established by President Joe Biden’s administration soon after he took office.

It’s the second decision in eight days in which the Supreme Court has rejected lawsuits from Texas on standing grounds. Last week, the court ruled that the state did not have standing to challenge a federal law that gives preferences to Native American families in the adoptions of Native children.

State standing is a key question in another major issue still awaiting decision from the court in the coming days: the legality of Biden’s decision to wipe out billions of dollars in student debt.

Six states are challenging the debt-relief plan, but it’s not clear if the states have suffered the sort of concrete harm that is typically necessary to challenge a policy in court. (In a separate case, two student-loan borrowers who oppose the plan are also suing. Their legal standing is also contested.)

In the immigration case, critics of the states’ approach said their claim of likely financial injury from unwarranted release of undocumented migrants was murky. But the court’s majority opinion written, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took a different tack and said the case was flawed because of a general principle against suits trying to force the executive branch to enforce the law against someone else.

“This Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals. “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”

The states challenged a Biden policy that directed immigration authorities to focus their enforcement efforts on people deemed to pose threats to public safety. Biden’s priorities differ from those of his predecessors, but Kavanaugh noted that, in the 27 years since the relevant immigration-law provisions were passed, the executive branch has never done what Texas and Louisiana sought in this case: the arrest and deportation of all foreigners covered by the language of the provisions.

“All five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritizations in making immigration arrests,” noted Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump who also worked in the George W. Bush White House early in his career.

Kavanaugh described the decision in the case as “narrow,” and said it would not automatically apply to federal government policies outside the area of arrest and prosecution, where the executive branch has traditionally been granted broad discretion.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the states lacked standing, but for a different reason. They said Congress specifically barred courts from issuing injunctions related to certain immigration laws.

“The Constitution affords federal courts considerable power, but it does not establish ‘government by lawsuit,’” Gorsuch wrote in an opinion joined by the two other conservatives.

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, arguing that the court’s “deeply and dangerously flawed” ruling unwisely gives the executive branch unbridled power. “And it renders States already laboring under the effects of massive illegal immigration even more helpless,” the conservative justice added.