← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Biden v. Texas

No. 21-954 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Apr 26, 2022 Decided: Jun 30, 2022

APA arbitrary-and-capricious review clear error standard (appellate review) Equal Protection Temporary Protected Status (TPS) clear and convincing evidence discriminatory intent intermediate scrutiny partisan gerrymandering preliminary relief racial gerrymandering strict scrutiny

Legal Issues

APA arbitrary-and-capricious reviewclear error standard (appellate review)Equal ProtectionTemporary Protected Status (TPS)clear and convincing evidencediscriminatory intentintermediate scrutinypartisan gerrymanderingpreliminary reliefracial gerrymanderingstrict scrutiny

The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Biden administration acted within its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act when it rescinded the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico). The Court reversed lower court orders that had blocked the rescission and forced reinstatement of MPP.

The Facts

Facts

After the Biden administration issued a memorandum ending MPP in June 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission. A federal district court in Texas ordered reinstatement of MPP; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the administration was required to continue MPP and whether it had authority to end the program.

The Issue

Issue

Whether the Biden administration had lawful authority to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols, and whether the INA compels the government to return noncitizens to contiguous territory when detention capacity is exceeded.

The Rules

Rule

The INA grants the executive broad discretion in managing immigration enforcement; agencies need not retain prior policies, and statutory language permitting (rather than requiring) a particular enforcement mechanism does not obligate its continued use.

The Application

Analysis

The administration's rescission of MPP turned on how to interpret the INA's authorization of contiguous-territory returns. Lower courts had read the statute as mandating reinstatement of the policy, but the Supreme Court held that permissive statutory language does not require an agency to retain an enforcement mechanism, even one previously adopted. The Court reasoned that the INA granted the executive broad discretion to select among authorized enforcement approaches, and that earlier policy choices need not constrain later administrations' choices. Accordingly, the rescission was lawful, and the lower courts erred in ordering reinstatement based on a reading of the statute that conflated authorization with obligation.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

Court ruled 5-4 for Biden administration. MPP rescission was lawful. Roberts wrote the majority; Barrett and Kavanaugh joined the three liberals.

The Record · 1 original document
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledApr 14, 2021
CL Statusterminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusterminated
Filed (CL)Apr 14, 2021
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-1e3c2a80 Jul 28, 2026

Related Cases (2)

  • Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
    The case cites Arizona v. United States for the legal principle that the Executive Branch has broad authority to set immigration enforcement policies based on foreign policy considerations and diplomatic relations with other nations.
  • Trump v. Hawaii
    The active case cites Trump v. Hawaii as relevant authority.

Related by Concept (1)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support