Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP): certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien … who is arriving on land … from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” The Biden administration later suspended the program. The Fifth Circuit affirmed an order enjoining the termination of MMP.
The Supreme Court reversed. The rescission of MPP did not violate INA section 1225. The contiguous-territory return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary and remains discretionary notwithstanding any violation of section 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention of such aliens. Since its enactment, every Presidential administration has interpreted section 1225(b)(2)(C) as discretionary, notwithstanding the consistent shortfall of funds to comply with section 1225(b)(2)(A). Interpreting section 1225(b)(2)(C) as a mandate imposes a significant burden upon the Executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico. The availability of parole as an alternative means of processing applicants for admission (section 1182(d)(5)(A)), additionally makes clear that the Court of Appeals erred.
The Court of Appeals also erred to the extent it understood itself to be reviewing an abstract decision apart from the specific agency actions contained in memoranda in which the Secretary of Homeland Security terminated MMP.
Annotation
Primary Holding
The rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico policy) did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Attorneys
- Elizabeth B. Prelogar for the Petitioners; Judd E. Stone, II for the Respondents
Opinions
Majority
- Chief Justice John Roberts (Author)
The Government’s rescission of the MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted a final agency action.
