i think it make it is really important to understand that if the court imposes limits we might see fewer judges interfering. at the same time, our immigration enforcement system works best when our immigration agency cans go after the people that they believe best serve the public. not when they are forced to go after people living in this country firefighter decades or just searching for safety in the united states. i m sorry. i didn t mean to interrupt. if texas wins, not only could this make it more arbitrary, it could green light intervention in federal policy. thank you both so much for being with us this morning. such an important subject that the supreme court is tackling right now. turning now to georgia, where the senate runoff is a
right now, we are following break news out of the supreme court, which is hearing argument this is hour in a case that could have huge implications firefighter immigration enforcement and how states can challenge federal poliies. the case centers on the biden administration s enforcement priorities. which focus on removing those who pose a public safety threat. much different from the hard line approach taken by the trump administration. courts blocked enforestment of the new policy after texas and louisiana sued. with us to talk about this is washington correspondent yamiche alcindor, and a policy director for the um grags council. what s the center of this arguments today there? reporter: good morning, jose. this is a landmark case.
really what s at the center is this memo sent out saying that he wanted to set out a priority for the biden administration and for immigration enforcement in this country. he said that he wanted to focus on the administration saw threats to national security, worder security and public safety saying this part that the federal government just doesn t have the resources to go after the 11 million people estimated to be living in this country without proper authorization. it s within their right to determine who they want to target for immigration enforcement and deportation. you saw states lake texas and louisiana push back and say it was not right for the federal government to do this. that they are stopping states from enforcing immigration laws and immigration policies. that went to a court that was before a trump-apointed judge. that judge sided with the states saying the biden administration was wrong. they went to the supreme court. the supreme court wanted to hear the case, but th
the first is whether or not the secretary has the ability to set these kinds of priorities. the second is the department of justice asking the supreme court to impose stricter limits on the ability of states like texas or california to go running to the nearest judge every time the federal government does something they don t like. that s why this case could have significant ramifications that go beyond the law. how would that have repurr cushion this is other aspects? our systems of checks and balances work better when people harmed by the federal government can go to the court and see a judge and get an order that fixes their harm. but not so much so when the federal government is being haul ed into court every time they do something policy related that a state doesn t like. the biden administration is asking the supreme court to make it harder for states to get these kinds of court orders. and sips we have seen an explosion of these court orders,