Biden v. Texas

• Citation: 142 S.Ct. 2528,213 L.Ed.2d 956
• Decision Date: 30 June 2022
• Docket Number: 21-954
• Parties: Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. TEXAS, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

142 S.Ct. 2528

213 L.Ed.2d 956

Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., President of the United States, et al., Petitioners

v.TEXAS, et al.

No. 21-954

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued April 26, 2022

Decided June 30, 2022

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, for petitioners.

Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, for respondents.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Michael R. Huston, Austin L. Raynor, Assistants to the Solicitor General, Erez Reuveni, Brian Ward, Joseph Darrow, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Eric S. Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General, D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Jesus A. Osete, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Missouri Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General, Judd E. Stone II, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Benjamin D. Wilson, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondents.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security—under the administration of President Trump—established the Migrant Protection Protocols. That program provided for the return to Mexico of non-Mexican aliens who had been detained attempting to enter the United States illegally from Mexico. On Inauguration Day 2021, the new administration of President Biden announced that the program would be suspended the next day, and later that year sought to terminate it. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, however, held that doing so would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The District Court also held that the attempted rescission of the program was inadequately explained in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. While its appeal was pending, the Government took new action to terminate the policy with a more detailed explanation. But the Court of Appeals held that this new action was not separately reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The questions presented are whether the Government's rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether the Government's second termination of the policy was a valid final agency action.

I

A

On December 20, 2018, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced a new program called Remain in Mexico, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). MPP was created in response to an immigration surge at the country's southern border, and a resulting "humanitarian and border security crisis" in which federal immigration officials were encountering approximately 2,000 inadmissible aliens each day. 554 F.Supp.3d 818, 831 (ND Tex. 2021). MPP provided that certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico would be returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. On the same day that Secretary Nielsen announced the program, the Government of Mexico agreed that it would cooperate in administering it, on a temporary basis.

MPP was implemented pursuant to express congressional authorization in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that "[i]n the case of an alien ... who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a of this title." 66 Stat. 163, as added and amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C).¹ Prior to the initiation of MPP, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its predecessor agency had "primarily used [ § 1225(b)(2)(C) ] on an ad-hoc basis to return certain Mexican and Canadian nationals" arriving at ports of entry. App. to Pet. for Cert. 273a, n. 12.

A separate provision of the same section of the INA states that if "an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title." § 1225(b)(2)(A). Due to consistent and significant funding shortfalls, however, DHS has never had "sufficient detention capacity to maintain in custody every single person described in section 1225." Id. , at 323a. In light of that fact, the Trump administration chose to implement MPP in part so that "[c]ertain aliens attempting to enter the U. S. illegally or without documentation, including those who claim asylum, will no longer be released into the country, where they often fail to file an asylum application and/or disappear before an immigration judge can determine the merits of any claim." 554 F.Supp.3d, at 832.

In January 2019, DHS began implementing MPP, initially in San Diego, California, then in El Paso, Texas, and Calexico, California, and then nationwide. By December 31, 2020, DHS had enrolled 68,039 aliens in the program.

Following the change in Presidential administrations, however, the Biden administration sought to terminate the program. On January 20, 2021, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security wrote that "[e]ffective January 21, 2021, the Department will suspend new enrollments in [MPP] pending further review of the program. Aliens who are not already enrolled in MPP should be processed under other existing legal authorities." Id. , at 836. President Biden also issued Executive Order No. 14010, which directed the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, to "promptly review and determine whether to terminate or modify the [MPP] program." 86 Fed. Reg. 8269 (2021).

On June 1, 2021, Secretary Mayorkas issued a memorandum officially terminating MPP (the June 1 Memorandum). In that memorandum, the Secretary noted his determination "that MPP [d]oes not adequately or sustainably enhance border management in such a way as to justify the program's extensive operational burdens and other shortfalls." App. to Pet. for Cert. 351a. He also emphasized that, since its inception, MPP had "played an outsized role in [DHS's] engagement with the Government of Mexico," given the "significant attention that it draws away from other elements that necessarily must be more central to the bilateral relationship." Id. , at 357a. For those and other reasons, the Secretary announced that he was "by this memorandum terminating the MPP program," and "direct[ed] DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to terminate MPP, including taking all steps necessary to rescind implementing guidance and other directives or policy guidance issued to implement the program." Id. , at 348a–349a.

B

On April 13, 2021, the States of Texas and Missouri (respondents) initiated this lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Secretary Mayorkas and others. Respondents’ initial complaint challenged the Acting Secretary's January 20 suspension of new enrollments in MPP, but following the June 1 Memorandum, they amended their complaint to challenge the Secretary's June 1 rescission of the entire program. The amended complaint asserted that the June 1 Memorandum violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. , and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and vacatur of the rescission pursuant to the APA.

The District Court conducted a one-day bench trial and entered judgment for respondents. The court first concluded that terminating MPP would violate the INA. It reasoned that section 1225 of the INA "provides the government two options": mandatory detention pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory return pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C). 554 F.Supp.3d, at 852. Because the Government was unable to meet its detention obligations under section 1225(b)(2)(A) due to resource constraints, the court concluded, "terminating MPP necessarily leads to the systemic violation of Section 1225 as aliens are released into the United States." Ibid . Second, the District Court found that the agency failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking and therefore acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA. Id. , at 847–851.

Based on these conclusions, the District Court "vacated [the June 1 Memorandum] in its entirety and remanded to DHS for further consideration." Id. , at 857 (boldface and capitalization omitted). And it imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Government to "enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under [ section 1225 ] without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention resources." Ibid. (emphasis in original).

The Government appealed and sought a stay of the injunction, which the District Court and the Court of Appeals each denied. The Government then applied to this Court for a stay. The Court denied the application, finding that the Government "had failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the [June 1 Memorandum] was not arbitrary and capricious." 594 U. S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 926, 210 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2021). The Court did not address the District Court's interpretation of the INA.

The parties proceeded to briefing in the Court of Appeals. While the Government's appeal was pending, however, Secretary Mayorkas "considered anew whether to maintain, terminate, or modify MPP in various ways." App. to Pet. for Cert. 286a. On September 29, 2021, the Secretary publicly announced his "inten[tion] to issue in the coming weeks a new memorandum terminating [MPP]." 20 F.4th 928, 954 (CA5 2021). The Government then moved...