Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

declined to “run interference in [the] delicate field of inter-
national relations” without “the affirmative intention of the 
Congress clearly expressed.”  Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petro-
leum  Co.,  569  U. S.  108,  115–116  (2013).    That  is  no  less 
true  in  the  context  of  immigration  law,  where  “[t]he  dy-
namic nature of relations with other countries requires the
Executive  Branch  to  ensure  that  enforcement  policies  are 
consistent  with  this  Nation’s  foreign  policy.”  Arizona  v. 
United States, 567 U. S. 387, 397 (2012). 

By interpreting section 1225(b)(2)(C) as a mandate, the
Court of Appeals imposed a significant burden upon the Ex-
ecutive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mex-
ico.  MPP applies exclusively to non-Mexican nationals who 
have  arrived  at  ports  of  entry  that  are  located  “in  the
United States.”  §1225(a)(1).  The Executive therefore can-
not  unilaterally  return  these  migrants  to  Mexico.  In  at-
tempting  to  rescind  MPP,  the  Secretary  emphasized  that
“[e]fforts to implement MPP have played a particularly out-
sized role in diplomatic engagements with Mexico, divert-
ing attention from more productive efforts to fight transna-
tional  criminal  and  smuggling  networks  and  address  the
root causes of migration.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 262a.  Yet 
under  the  Court  of  Appeals’ 
interpretation,  section 
1225(b)(2)(C) authorized the District Court to force the Ex-
ecutive to the bargaining table with Mexico, over a policy 
that both countries wish to terminate, and to supervise its
continuing negotiations with Mexico to ensure that they are
conducted “in good faith.”  554 F. Supp. 3d, at 857 (empha-
sis deleted).  That stark consequence confirms our conclu-
sion that Congress did not intend section 1225(b)(2)(C)  to
tie the hands of the Executive in this manner. 

Finally, we note that—as DHS explained in its October
29 Memoranda—the INA expressly authorizes DHS to pro-
cess applicants for admission under a third option: parole.
See 8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A).  Every administration, includ-
ing the Trump and Biden administrations, has utilized this