Biden v. Texas
Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration in which the Court held that that the federal government has the authority to revoke the Migrant Protection Protocols, known unofficially as the "Remain in Mexico" policy.
Background
Admissibility
Under federal immigration law, undocumented immigrants are "inadmissible" to the United States andare subject to expedited removal. 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.
In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the Migrant Protection Protocols requiring some undocumented asylum seekers to "remain in Mexico" while officials reviewed their case. After a policy guidance was issued on January 25, a lawsuit was filed in California to argue that the contiguous territory provision did not apply for undocumented immigrants subject to expedited removal.
''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.In May 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending disposition of the appeal. The Mexican government reported in June 2019 that 15,079 people were awaiting immigration proceedings in Mexico under the MPP program.
In February 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, 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.
The Supreme Court granted that request, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. After President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the Court held the case in abeyance. It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment as moot in June after the government rescinded MPP.
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. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a stay pending appeal, 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.In December, the Fifth Circuit again ruled against the federal government, this time on the merits of the appeal.
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. Certiorari was granted on February 18, 2022 for the statutory question.