Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

in  diplomatic  engagements  with  Mexico,  diverting  atten-
tion  from  more  productive  efforts  to  fight  transnational
criminal  and  smuggling  networks  and  address  the  root 
causes of migration.”  Id., at 262a. 

In  light  of  those  conclusions,  the  Secretary  announced 
that he was once again “hereby terminating MPP.”  Id., at 
263a.  He explained that DHS would “continue complying 
with  the  [District  Court’s]  injunction  requiring  good-faith
implementation  and  enforcement  of  MPP.”    Id.,  at  264a. 
But he noted that “the termination of MPP” would be “im-
plemented as soon as practicable after a final judicial deci-
sion to vacate” that injunction.  Ibid.  The Government then 
moved to vacate the injunction on the ground that the Oc-
tober 29 Memoranda had superseded the June 1 Memoran-
dum, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  instead  affirmed  the  District
Court’s judgment in full.  With respect to the INA question,
the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s anal-
ysis of the relevant provisions.  That is, the court explained,
section  1225(b)(2)(A)  “sets  forth  a  general,  plainly  obliga-
tory  rule:  detention  for  aliens  seeking  admission,”  while 
section  1225(b)(2)(C)  “authorizes  contiguous-territory  re-
turn as an alternative.”  20 F. 4th, at 996.  Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals reasoned, “DHS is violating (A)’s mandate,
refusing to avail itself of (C)’s authorized alternative, and 
then  complaining  that  it  doesn’t  like  its  options.”    Ibid., 
n. 18. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  also  held  that  “[t]he  October  29 
Memoranda  did  not  constitute  a  new  and  separately  re-
viewable ‘final agency action.’ ”  Id., at 951.  The Court of 
Appeals distinguished “DHS’s June 1 decision to terminate
MPP,” which it claimed “had legal effect,” from the June 1
Memorandum, the October 29 Memoranda, and “any other 
subsequent memos,” which it held “simply explained DHS’s 
decision.”  Ibid.    The  Court  of  Appeals  then  criticized  the
Government for proceeding “without a hint of an intention