Biden v. Texas

Biden v. Texas
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 26, 2022
Decided June 30, 2022
Full case nameJoseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Docket no.21-954
Citations597 U.S. 785 (more)
142 S.Ct. 2528
ArgumentOral argument
DecisionOpinion
Case history
Prior
Holding
The Government's rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
DissentAlito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch
DissentBarrett, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch (all but first sentence)
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

In Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (2022), Texas and Missouri attempted to sue the Biden administration for terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration legally possessed the authority to terminate the policy. By reversing lower court rulings, the Court affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acted within its legal discretion in ending the program.[1]

Background

Immigration Laws

Under federal immigration law, undocumented immigrants are "inadmissible" to the United States and are subject to expedited removal.[2] In other situations arriving immigrants who may be inadmissible are placed in formal removal proceedings to appear before an immigration judge for a hearing. Immigrants in formal removal proceedings may be returned to a "contiguous territory" where they are entitled to apply for asylum.[3]

In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the Migrant Protection Protocols (the "Remain in Mexico" policy) requiring some undocumented asylum seekers to "remain in Mexico" while officials reviewed their case. After a policy guidance was issued on January 25,[4] a lawsuit was filed in California by Innovation Law Lab, an immigration rights organization, to argue that the contiguous territory provision did not apply to undocumented immigrants subject to expedited removal.[5]

Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf

In April 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined the implementation of the MPP expansion.[6][7]

In May 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending disposition of the appeal.[8][9] The Mexican government reported in June 2019 that 15,079 people were awaiting immigration proceedings in Mexico under the MPP program.[10]

In February 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Fernandez,[11] and in March, the same panel denied a request by the federal government to stay the injunction pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.[12]

The Supreme Court granted that request, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.[13] After President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the Court held the case in abeyance.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case in June 2021 as moot following the Biden administration's formal termination of the program, leaving the Ninth Circuit's Injunction in place.[14]

New Administration

President Biden immediately ordered his Acting Homeland Security Secretary, David Pekske, to create a mermorandum to mandate a 100 day deportation moratorium for majority of non citizens attempting to enter the United States. [15] The Biden Administration wanted to handle immigration issues at a differently angle than the previous Trump administration and wanted to make changes to the way the immigration system operated.

By June 2021, the New Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued to terminate the MPP policy with a seven page memorandum. He had the decision to either modify or terminate the policy. He came to the conclusion that the policy lacked the ability to face major border issues and caused more harm by straining our connection to Mexico.[16]

The Administration vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment as moot, so in June 2021 the government was able to rescind MPP. [17]

Fifth Circuit

In April 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission of MPP in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In August, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk held the rescission of MPP was arbitrary and capricious, agreeing with the states that allowing asylum seekers to stay within the United States imposed undue costs on these states, and issued a permanent injunction.[18] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a stay pending appeal,[19] as did the Supreme Court in a 6-3 order citing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.[20]

Kacasmarky reinforced MPP to continue until the Administration found another way to detain all undocumented immigrants under proper detention.[21] With more efforts to terminate MPP, Mayorkas issued another memorandum in October 2021 that contained thirty-eight pages expanding on more explanations to end the policy.

In December, the Fifth Circuit again ruled against the federal government, this time on the merits of the appeal.[22][23] The Court discussed that the appeal only reinstated the same ideas and no final execution plan was developed. Kacsmaryk supposed that federal law required immigrants claiming asylum to remain in Mexico when they could not be detained in the United States. However, the immigration statute allows other alternatives that Kacsmaryk did not consider in his opinion.

The federal government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[24] Certiorari was granted on February 18, 2022 for the statutory question.[25][26]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on February 18, 2022. Oral arguments were held on April 26, 2022. On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit by a 5–4 vote and held that the federal government has the authority to revoke the Migrant Protection Protocols. It was ruled that the 1996 law which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, and which was used to justify the authority Congress had over the Remain in Mexico policy, did not deny the President the authority to end the protocols.[27][28][29] The INA has loose phrasing like “may return” noncitizen immigrants to a contiguous territory which the Court decided was not a mandatory law.[30] The Court also came to conclusion that less of the MPP policy would strengthen diplomacy with Mexico.

Aftermath

The case was then returned to the lower courts for additional proceedings determining whether the Biden administration's action was "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. On December 15, 2022, U.S. district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk prevented the Biden administration from officially ending the program by ruling that the policy should stay in place while legal challenges play out.[31] However, Kacsmaryk did not order the policy reinstated.[32] In February 2023, Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced it rejects any efforts to reinstate the policy for asylum-seekers.[33] In May of 2023, The Biden administration abandon its appeal of the second halt put in place by lower counts, acknowledging the uselessness of ongoing litigation in that specific venue while pursuing final administration termination actions. As of 2025 the case remains in limbo pending final administrative changes.[34]

References

  1. ↑ "Supreme Court Permits Biden to Terminate 'Remain in Mexico' Program". American Immigration Council. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  2. ↑ 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)
  3. ↑ 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(c)
  4. ↑ Wasem, Ruth Ellen (2020). "More than a Wall: The Rise and Fall of US Asylum and Refugee Policy". Journal on Migration and Human Security. 8 (3). doi:10.1177/2331502420948847.
  5. ↑ "Mexico rejects any effort to reinstate 'remain in Mexico' policy for asylum-seekers". February 7, 2023.
  6. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
  7. ↑ Gonzales, Richard (April 8, 2019). "Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Policy of Sending Asylum-Seekers to Mexico". NPR.
  8. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2019).
  9. ↑ Gonzales, Richard (May 8, 2019). "Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can Keep Sending Asylum-Seekers to Mexico". NPR.
  10. ↑ ""We Can't Help You Here": US Returns of Asylum Seekers to Mexico". Human Rights Watch. July 2, 2019.
  11. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020).
  12. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2020).
  13. ↑ Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, 141 S. Ct. 617 (2020).
  14. ↑ "Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  15. ↑ "Texas v. the Biden Administration: How Recent Lawsuits Have Redefined the Federal Immigration Agenda". National Immigration Forum. August 15, 2024. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  16. ↑ hlr (November 10, 2022). "Biden v. Texas". Harvard Law Review. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  17. ↑ Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab, 141 S. Ct. 2842 (2021).
  18. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 554 F. Supp. 3d 818 (N.D. Tex. 2021).
  19. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 10 F.4th 538 (5th Cir. 2021).
  20. ↑ Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 926 (2021).
  21. ↑ "Biden v. Texas". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  22. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021).
  23. ↑ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (December 15, 2022). "Judge suspends Biden administration's termination of "Remain in Mexico" border policy". CBS News.
  24. ↑ Howe, Amy (February 18, 2022). "Justices agree to review Biden's attempt to unwind Trump-era asylum policy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2022.
  25. ↑ "Biden v. Texas". Oyez.
  26. ↑ "21-954 Biden v. Texas" (PDF). supremecourt.gov.
  27. ↑ Blitzer, Ronn (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy". Fox News. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  28. ↑ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court says Biden can end "Remain in Mexico" rule for asylum-seekers". CBS News. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  29. ↑ Zampa, Peter (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court backs Biden administration in immigration policy rollback". KCBD. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  30. ↑ "8 USC 1225: Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  31. ↑ Gans, Jared (December 15, 2022). "Federal judge prevents Biden from ending Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy". The Hill. Retrieved December 17, 2022.
  32. ↑ "Judge blocks Biden bid to end 'Remain in Mexico' policy". Associated Press. December 16, 2022. Retrieved December 16, 2022.
  33. ↑ Garcia, Amando; Owen, Quinn (February 7, 2023). "Mexico rejects any effort to reinstate 'remain in Mexico' policy for asylum-seekers". ABC News. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  34. ↑ "Texas Litigation Over Individual Mandate Heats Up". Forefront Group. April 27, 2018. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  1. ↑ "Biden v. Texas". Constitutional Accountability Center. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.