Biden v. Texas

Background

The States of Texas and Missouri sued after the Biden Administration suspended and then terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a policy that returned certain non‑Mexican migrants to Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases proceeded. The District Court vacated the termination and ordered nationwide enforcement; the Fifth Circuit affirmed some rulings as appeals proceeded.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two questions: whether the INA requires continued returns to Mexico and whether the Government’s October 29 memoranda ending MPP were final agency action. The Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(C) uses “may,” so the Secretary has discretion to return arriving aliens and the statute does not force the Government to continue MPP even if detention capacity is limited. The Court also held the October 29 memoranda were final agency action because DHS chose to “deal with the problem afresh” after the District Court vacated its earlier memo, making the new memoranda reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court noted the District Court’s injunction violated 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) but reached the merits.

Real world impact

The decision allows the Government to end MPP and to rely instead on other measures, like case‑by‑case parole, while courts review the October 29 memoranda under the APA. Migrants, border officials, and states will see immediate changes in processing at the southern border. The District Court must still review the new memoranda.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices disagreed. A dissent argued the statute mandates detention and mandatory returns; another would have remanded over jurisdictional issues. One concurrence highlighted parole as an alternative.