Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

2 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

Option  two:    DHS  may  choose  to  return  noncitizens  to 
Mexico.  8  U. S. C.  §1225(b)(2)(C).    Consistent  with  that 
statutory  authority,  the  prior  Administration  chose  to  re-
turn a relatively small group of noncitizens to Mexico.   

In general, when there is insufficient detention capacity,
both the parole option and the return-to-Mexico option are
legally permissible options under the immigration statutes. 
As the recent history illustrates, every President since the 
late 1990s has employed the parole option, and President 
Trump also employed the return-to-Mexico option for a rel-
atively small group of noncitizens.  Because the immigra-
tion statutes afford substantial discretion to the Executive, 
different  Presidents  may  exercise  that  discretion  differ-
ently.  That is Administrative Law 101.  See Motor Vehicle 
Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto-
mobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., con-
curring in part and dissenting in part).

To  be  sure,  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  and  this 
Court’s  decision  in  State  Farm  require  that  an  executive
agency’s exercise of discretion be reasonable and reasona-
bly  explained.    See  id.,  at  43  (majority  opinion);  see  also 
FCC  v.  Prometheus  Radio  Project,  592  U. S.  ___,  ___−___, 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 7−8, 11); FCC v. Fox Television Sta-
tions, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 514−515 (2009); 5 U. S. C. §706.
For example, when there is insufficient detention capacity
and  DHS  chooses  to  parole  noncitizens  into  the  United 
States  rather  than  returning  them  to  Mexico,  DHS  must 
reasonably explain why parole provides a “significant pub-
lic benefit.”  8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A); see, e.g., State Farm, 
463 U. S., at 46–57.  Review under that State Farm stand-
ard is deferential but not toothless.  Id., at 56. 

The question of whether DHS’s October 29 decision satis-
fies the State Farm standard is not before this Court at this 
time.  The Court today therefore properly leaves the State 
Farm issue for consideration on remand.  See ante, at 18, 
25; Tr. of Oral Arg. 67−68.