United States v. Texas (2021) (SCOTUS, no date)
The Facts
The Trump administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols in 2019, requiring non-Mexican nationals seeking asylum at the southern border to remain in Mexico pending immigration proceedings. The Biden administration attempted to end the policy in 2021, but Texas and Missouri successfully sued, arguing the INA's 'return to contiguous territory' provision required the government to continue using MPP or detain all arriving noncitizens. A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the injunction requiring reinstatement of MPP. The Supreme Court granted review.
The Application
The Court's analysis centered on the statutory language of § 1225(b)(2)(C), interpreting the permissive 'may return' as granting DHS discretion rather than imposing a mandatory requirement. When applied to the Biden administration's rescission of MPP, this interpretation meant that DHS was not bound to continue returning asylum seekers to Mexico even when detention capacity was unavailable, the statute permitted the agency to choose alternative processing methods. The Court further examined the rescission memoranda under the APA's reasoned-explanation standard and found DHS had adequately explained its policy shift, rejecting Texas and Missouri's argument that mandatory return-to-contiguous-territory was required by statute. This holding affirmed the executive's broad discretion over immigration enforcement and overturned the lower courts' injunction forcing reinstatement of the program.
The Conclusion
**Decided June 30, 2022. The Court held 5-4 that DHS had statutory authority to rescind MPP.** The majority found the 'may return' provision is permissive and gives DHS discretion: the statute does not mandate use of the program. The Court also held the Biden administration's rescission memoranda were not arbitrary and capricious. The ruling ended the court-ordered reinstatement of Remain in Mexico and affirmed broad executive discretion over border processing policies.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court considered whether the Biden administration's decision to rescind the Trump-era 'Migrant Protection Protocols'. The Remain in Mexico policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their U.S. Immigration proceedings continued. Was a lawful exercise of executive discretion or violated the immigration statutes, resolving a lower-court injunction that had forced the administration to reinstate the program.
Facts
The Trump administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols in 2019, requiring non-Mexican nationals seeking asylum at the southern border to remain in Mexico pending immigration proceedings. The Biden administration attempted to end the policy in 2021, but Texas and Missouri successfully sued, arguing the INA's 'return to contiguous territory' provision required the government to continue using MPP or detain all arriving noncitizens. A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the injunction requiring reinstatement of MPP. The Supreme Court granted review.
Issue
Whether the INA's return-to-contiguous-territory provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C), gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to choose not to return asylum seekers to Mexico, or whether the statute requires mandatory use of contiguous-territory return when detention capacity is unavailable.
Rule
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) provides that the government 'may return' arriving aliens to a contiguous territory pending removal proceedings. The APA requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations for policy changes under Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983). Executive agencies have broad discretion over immigration enforcement priorities. States challenging rescission of a federal program must satisfy Article III standing requirements.
Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the statutory language of § 1225(b)(2)(C), interpreting the permissive "may return" as granting DHS discretion rather than imposing a mandatory requirement. When applied to the Biden administration's rescission of MPP, this interpretation meant that DHS was not bound to continue returning asylum seekers to Mexico even when detention capacity was unavailable. The statute permitted the agency to choose alternative processing methods. The Court further examined the rescission memoranda under the APA's reasoned-explanation standard and found DHS had adequately explained its policy shift, rejecting Texas and Missouri's argument that mandatory return-to-contiguous-territory was required by statute. This holding affirmed the executive's broad discretion over immigration enforcement and overturned the lower courts' injunction forcing reinstatement of the program.
Conclusion
**Decided June 30, 2022. The Court held 5-4 that DHS had statutory authority to rescind MPP.** The majority found the 'may return' provision is permissive and gives DHS discretion. The statute does not mandate use of the program. The Court also held the Biden administration's rescission memoranda were not arbitrary and capricious. The ruling ended the court-ordered reinstatement of Remain in Mexico and affirmed broad executive discretion over border processing policies.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support