Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the June 1 Memorandum violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA. Subsequently, on June 1, 2021, DHS secretary Mayorkas issued a memorandum (“June 1 Memorandum”) officially terminating MPP. Upon taking office in early 2021, President Biden sought to wind down MPP, ordering CBP to stop placing people into the program. § 1225(b)(2)(C), which provides that the DHS secretary “may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Migrants who were returned to Mexico under MPP were at an increased risk of murder, rape, kidnapping, and other violent assaults, often lacked adequate legal counsel, and faced difficulties returning to the U.S. While the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Biden administration’s rescission of MPP was largely a victory for immigrant communities, the Court remanded the case to the district court to address remaining Administrative Procedure Act (APA) issues, leaving some questions unresolved.ĭiscussion: Under MPP, certain migrants seeking asylum at the U.S./Mexico border were returned to Mexico to await the results of their immigration proceedings. Regarding the merits of the case, the Court found that federal law provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with discretion to return migrants to contiguous countries – Canada and Mexico. In clarifying that this authority is discretionary, rather than mandatory, the Court evaluated legislative history, the foreign affairs consequences of mandating such returns, and the use of parole in processing applicants for admission. Aleman Gonzalez, as further discussed below. The Court’s finding on jurisdiction is consistent with its holding in Garland v. Takeaway: In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that the Biden administration may rescind the Trump-era (“MPP”), also referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program, which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings. In its ruling, the Supreme Court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction: finding that the lower court had lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction requiring the government to enforce MPP in good faith until it was lawfully rescinded. The Supreme Court considered the termination of two Trump-era immigration policies: the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) and the 2019 Public Charge Rule. Cases Involving the Biden Administration’s Decision to End Certain Trump-Era Immigration Policies Case Involving Immigration Enforcement Priorities Case Involving Appellate Review of Immigration-Related DecisionsĮ. Case Involving the Personal Liability of Border Patrol Agents and Federal Officers for Unconstitutional Actionsĭ. Cases Involving Bond Hearings for Detained Immigrants City and County of San Francisco, California, 596 U.S. These immigration-related cases are reviewed at length below. Garland, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could not review factual findings related to discretionary relief, drastically limiting appellate courts’ ability to review findings made by overburdened and backlogged immigration courts. Boule, the Court limited the accountability of immigration enforcement officers and other federal law enforcement by removing the ability to hold federal officers personally liable for unconstitutional actions. In Patel v. Aleman-Gonzalez, the Supreme Court limited the availability of bond hearings for detained immigrants. Texas, other Supreme Court decisions this past term are likely to have negative implications for immigrant communities. The Court’s decision represented a positive outcome for migrants, many of whom faced an increased risk of kidnapping and violence in Mexico. In that case, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings to hold that the Biden administration could terminate MPP, which required many asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings. Texas, centering on the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) (also known as “Remain in Mexico”), ended with a mostly favorable outcome for immigrant communities. During the 2021-2022 term, the Supreme Court considered a number of cases that significantly impacted immigration law and policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |