646 F.Supp.3d 753
N.D. Tex.2022Background
- The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) returned certain non-Mexican nationals to Mexico to await removal proceedings; DHS implemented MPP in 2019 and enrolled tens of thousands.
- The Biden administration suspended new enrollments (Jan 2021) and issued a June 1, 2021 memorandum terminating MPP; Texas and Missouri challenged those actions in federal court.
- The district court vacated the June 1 memorandum and enjoined termination; DHS issued new October 29, 2021 memoranda again terminating MPP.
- The Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court reviewed earlier rulings; the Supreme Court reversed aspects of the Fifth Circuit but remanded, directing the district court to decide whether the October 29 memoranda comply with the APA.
- Plaintiffs moved under APA §705 to postpone the effective date of the October 29 memoranda pending merits review. The district court granted a stay, finding Plaintiffs likely to prevail on arbitrary-and-capricious grounds and that other stay factors favored relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Oct. 29 memoranda | States suffer concrete costs from termination and thus have standing | Lack of standing or mootness | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; prior findings and Supreme Court remand support it |
| Reviewability / committed-to-agency-discretion & zone of interests | Termination is reviewable under APA; States fall within zone | Termination is committed to discretion or outside zone | Court: Claims are reviewable; rejects defendants' nonreviewability arguments |
| Whether §1252(f)(1) bars issuance of a §705 stay | §1252(f)(1) is a limit on injunctions, not on §705 postponements | §1252(f)(1) prohibits lower-court relief that affects Part IV | Court: §1252(f)(1) does not bar §705 stays; §705 relief differs from injunctive relief |
| Whether §705 allows staying an already-effective agency action | Courts can postpone an agency action's effective date under §705 even after it has taken effect | §705 only contemplates postponing an agency's own effective-date action before it takes effect | Court: §705 authorizes stays of already-effective actions; district courts have that authority |
| Arbitrary and capricious: detention mandate and parole limits | Oct. 29 memoranda failed to address effect on §1225 mandatory-detention and limits on parole; did not meaningfully consider contiguous-return option | Secretary considered detention and parole authority and relied on discretion and past practice | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; memoranda inadequately considered mandatory detention, parole’s case-by-case limits, and contiguous-territory return implications |
| Arbitrary and capricious: deterrence, in absentia removals, and State costs | Memoranda failed to quantify or reasonably analyze MPP's deterrent effect, higher in absentia rates, and costs/reliance of border States | DHS cited data and policy preferences minimizing State costs and adverse effects | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on showing failure to consider relevant factors (deterrence, in absentia implications, State burdens and reliance) |
| Equitable factors and scope of relief | States would suffer irreparable harm and broad relief is needed for uniformity | Government argued exercise of policy discretion and harms from staying termination | Court: Irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest favor a stay; stay need not be geographically limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (sets arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
- Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (U.S. 2022) (Supreme Court remanded for district court to assess Oct. 29 memoranda under APA)
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (U.S. 2022) (interpreting §1252(f)(1) as limiting injunctive relief by lower courts)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (stay and preliminary-injunction equitable factors and merger of public-interest and balance inquiries)
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020) (agency must consider reliance interests when changing policy)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018) (statutory interpretation of immigration detention provisions)
- Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021) (Fifth Circuit decision addressing MPP litigation)
- Texas v. United States, 40 F.4th 205 (5th Cir. 2022) (discusses vacatur, §1252(f)(1), and nationwide relief considerations)