Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

entered  judgment  for  respondents.    The  court  first  con-
cluded that terminating MPP would violate the INA.  It rea-
soned  that  section  1225  of  the  INA  “provides  the  govern-
ment  two  options”:  mandatory  detention  pursuant  to
section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory return pursu-
ant to section 1225(b)(2)(C).  554 F. Supp. 3d, at 852.  Be-
cause the Government was unable to meet its detention ob-
ligations  under  section  1225(b)(2)(A)  due  to  resource 
constraints, the court concluded, “terminating MPP neces-
sarily leads to the systemic violation of Section 1225 as al-
iens are released into the United States.”  Ibid.  Second, the 
District Court found that the agency failed to engage in rea-
soned  decisionmaking  and  therefore  acted  arbitrarily  and 
capriciously in violation of the APA.  Id., at 847–851. 

Based on these conclusions, the District  Court “vacated 
[the June 1 Memorandum] in its entirety and remanded to 
DHS  for  further  consideration.”    Id.,  at  857  (boldface  and
capitalization  omitted).  And  it  imposed  a  nationwide  in-
junction  ordering  the  Government  to  “enforce  and  imple-
ment  MPP  in  good  faith  until  such  a  time  as  it  has  been 
lawfully  rescinded  in  compliance  with  the  APA  and  until 
such a time as the federal government has sufficient deten-
tion capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory de-
tention  under  [section  1225]  without  releasing  any  aliens 
because of a lack of detention resources.”  Ibid. (emphasis 
in original).

The  Government  appealed  and  sought  a  stay  of  the  in-
junction, which the District Court and the Court of Appeals 
each denied.  The Government then applied to this Court 
for a stay.  The Court denied the application, finding that
the Government “had failed to show a likelihood of success 
on the claim that the [June 1 Memorandum] was not arbi-
trary and capricious.”  594 U. S. ___ (2021).  The Court did 
not address the District Court’s interpretation of the INA. 
The parties proceeded to briefing in the Court of Appeals.