Biden v. Texas
Case Overview
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Biden administration acted within its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act when it rescinded the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico). The Court reversed lower court orders that had blocked the rescission and forced reinstatement of MPP.
The Facts
After the Biden administration issued a memorandum ending MPP in June 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission. A federal district court in Texas ordered reinstatement of MPP; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the administration was required to continue MPP and whether it had authority to end the program.
The Application
The administration's rescission of MPP turned on how to interpret the INA's authorization of contiguous-territory returns. Lower courts had read the statute as mandating reinstatement of the policy, but the Supreme Court held that permissive statutory language does not require an agency to retain an enforcement mechanism, even one previously adopted. The Court reasoned that the INA granted the executive broad discretion to select among authorized enforcement approaches, and that earlier policy choices need not constrain later administrations' choices. Accordingly, the rescission was lawful, and the lower courts erred in ordering reinstatement based on a reading of the statute that conflated authorization with obligation.
The Conclusion
**Court ruled 5-4 for Biden administration.** MPP rescission was lawful. Roberts wrote the majority; Barrett and Kavanaugh joined the three liberals.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Biden administration acted within its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act when it rescinded the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico). The Court reversed lower court orders that had blocked the rescission and forced reinstatement of MPP.
Facts
After the Biden administration issued a memorandum ending MPP in June 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission. A federal district court in Texas ordered reinstatement of MPP; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the administration was required to continue MPP and whether it had authority to end the program.
Issue
Whether the Biden administration had lawful authority to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols, and whether the INA compels the government to return noncitizens to contiguous territory when detention capacity is exceeded.
Rule
The INA grants the executive broad discretion in managing immigration enforcement; agencies need not retain prior policies, and statutory language permitting (rather than requiring) a particular enforcement mechanism does not obligate its continued use.
Analysis
The administration's rescission of MPP turned on how to interpret the INA's authorization of contiguous-territory returns. Lower courts had read the statute as mandating reinstatement of the policy, but the Supreme Court held that permissive statutory language does not require an agency to retain an enforcement mechanism, even one previously adopted. The Court reasoned that the INA granted the executive broad discretion to select among authorized enforcement approaches, and that earlier policy choices need not constrain later administrations' choices. Accordingly, the rescission was lawful, and the lower courts erred in ordering reinstatement based on a reading of the statute that conflated authorization with obligation.
Conclusion
**Court ruled 5-4 for Biden administration.** MPP rescission was lawful. Roberts wrote the majority; Barrett and Kavanaugh joined the three liberals.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support