Biden v. Texas

The case arose from the Biden administration's effort to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a Trump-era program requiring certain asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases proceeded. Texas and Missouri sued, contending that federal immigration law mandated returning such migrants, making the rescission unlawful. A district court issued a nationwide injunction to reinstate MPP, largely upheld by the Fifth Circuit. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the contiguous-territory return provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act is discretionary, not mandatory. The Court found the termination consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and reversed the injunction, allowing the administration to wind down the program.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration, reversed the lower court's injunction, and held that the government could lawfully terminate the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act compelled the government to maintain the Migrant Protection Protocols, and whether the Department of Homeland Security's termination decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ruling affirmed broad executive discretion in immigration enforcement, temporarily resolved the legal status of MPP, and intensified political debate over border security and humanitarian obligations. It also set a significant precedent on the limits of judicial intervention in executive immigration decisions.