Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–954.  Argued April 26, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022 

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security began to imple-
ment  the  Migrant  Protection  Protocols  (MPP).  Under  MPP,  certain 
non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to
Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under section 
1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  MPP was imple-
mented pursuant to a provision of the INA that applies to aliens “ar-
riving  on  land  .  .  .  from  a  foreign  territory  contiguous  to  the  United
States”  and  provides  that  the  Secretary  of  Homeland  Security  “may 
return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 
1229a.”  8 U. S. C. §1225(b)(2)(C).  Following a change in Presidential
administrations,  the  Biden  administration  announced  that  it  would 
suspend the program, and on June 1, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland
Security issued a memorandum officially terminating it.  

The States of Texas and Missouri (respondents) brought suit in the 
Northern District of Texas against the Secretary and others, asserting
that the June 1 Memorandum violated the INA and the Administra-
tive  Procedure  Act  (APA).    The  District  Court  entered  judgment  for 
respondents.  The court first concluded that terminating MPP would 
violate the INA, reasoning that section 1225 of the INA “provides the
government two options” with respect to illegal entrants: mandatory
detention pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory re-
turn pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C).  554 F. Supp. 3d 818, 852.  Be-
cause  the  Government  was  unable  to  meet  its  mandatory  detention 
obligations under section 1225(b)(2)(A) due to resource constraints, the 
court  reasoned,  terminating  MPP  would  necessarily  lead  to  the  sys-
temic violation of section 1225 as illegal  entrants were released into 
the United States.  Second, the District Court concluded that the June 
1 Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.