Biden v. Texas
597 U.S. 785
SCOTUS2022Background
- In 2019 DHS created the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(C) to return certain non‑Mexican land‑arriving aliens to Mexico to await removal proceedings.
- §1225(b)(2)(A) requires that aliens who are not clearly admissible “shall be detained,” but DHS has long lacked capacity to detain all such aliens.
- The Biden administration suspended MPP on Jan 21, 2021 and Secretary Mayorkas issued a June 1, 2021 memorandum terminating MPP.
- Texas and Missouri sued under the INA and the APA; the district court vacated the June 1 memo and entered a nationwide injunction requiring DHS to implement MPP until lawfully rescinded and detention capacity existed.
- While the appeal was pending, DHS issued October 29, 2021 memoranda that again terminated MPP with an expanded administrative record; the Fifth Circuit nevertheless affirmed the district court.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held (1) the district‑court injunction violated 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) but that §1252(f)(1) does not strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the merits, (2) §1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary, and (3) the October 29 memoranda were final agency action; the case was remanded for APA review of the October 29 memoranda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of §1252(f)(1) jurisdictional bar | §1252(f)(1) does not bar district review or relief in this case; courts may enjoin unlawful agency action | §1252(f)(1) bars lower courts from enjoining operation of §§1221–1232; district injunction violated the statute | District court injunction violated §1252(f)(1), but §1252(f)(1) is a limit on remedial authority (not a complete bar to lower‑court subject‑matter jurisdiction) and does not deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to reach the merits |
| Whether rescinding MPP violated INA (§1225(b)(2)(C)) | Because §1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention, §1225(b)(2)(C) must operate as a mandatory alternative when DHS cannot detain; rescission unlawfully causes systemic releases | §1225(b)(2)(C) says “may” and therefore is discretionary; Congress did not write a mandatory fix; parole and foreign‑policy considerations are available alternatives | §1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary; rescission of MPP did not, as a matter of statutory text, violate the INA |
| Reviewability / finality of October 29 memoranda | October 29 memoranda are post hoc explanations or mere statements and not a new, separately reviewable final agency action | October 29 memoranda superseded the June 1 memo, were issued after remand, and represent new final agency action taken "afresh" | October 29 memoranda were final agency action under Bennett and are separately reviewable |
| APA review / arbitrary and capricious claim | June 1 termination was arbitrary and capricious; injunction and vacatur were proper | DHS cured defects by issuing October 29 memoranda with fuller reasons; court should review those reasons under §706 | Supreme Court rejected the INA claim, held Oct. 29 memoranda reviewable, reversed Fifth Circuit, and remanded to the district court to review the October 29 memoranda under the APA (State Farm standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (tests for final agency action: consummation of decisionmaking and determining rights or obligations)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action set aside if arbitrary and capricious)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (Chenery II: agencies on remand may adopt new reasons; courts must judge action by reasons relied on by agency)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus is not part of the opinion)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (construing §1252(f)(1) as a limit on injunctive relief)
- Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015) (Executive power in foreign affairs)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (limits on executive power; Jackson concurrence)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (pragmatic approach to finality and reviewability)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (deference to Executive in immigration/foreign relations context)