Biden v. Texas
| Biden v. Texas | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 26, 2022 | |
| Full case name | Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al. |
| Docket no. | 21-954 |
| Citations | 597 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | |
| Questions presented | |
| (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225 requires the Department of Homeland Security to continue implementing the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP); and (2) Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the Secretary of Homeland Security's new decision terminating MPP had no legal effect. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Laws applied | |
| Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 | |
Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.
Background
In December 2018 under the Trump administration, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced its promulgation of the Remain in Mexico policy, formally titled the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while officials reviewed their case. In April 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined its enforcement.[1] In May 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending disposition of the appeal.[2] In February 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Fernandez,[3] and in March, the same panel denied a request by the federal government to stay the injunction pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.[4] The Supreme Court granted that request, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.[5] After President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the Court held the case in abeyance. It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment as moot in June after the government rescinded MPP.[6]
In April 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission of MPP in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In August, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk held the rescission of MPP was arbitrary and capricious, agreeing with the states that allowing asylum seekers to stay within the United States imposed undue costs on these states, and issued a permanent injunction.[7] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a stay pending appeal,[8] as did the Supreme Court, the latter in a 6–3 vote.[9] In December, the Fifth Circuit again ruled against the federal government, this time on the merits of the appeal.[10]
The federal government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[11]
Supreme Court
Certiorari was granted in the case on February 18, 2022. Oral arguments were held on April 26, 2022.
References
- ^ Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
- ^ Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2019).
- ^ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020).
- ^ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2020).
- ^ Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, 141 S. Ct. 617 (2020).
- ^ Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab, 141 S. Ct. 2842 (2021).
- ^ Texas v. Biden, 554 F. Supp. 3d 818 (N.D. Tex. 2021).
- ^ Texas v. Biden, 10 F.4th 538 (5th Cir. 2021).
- ^ Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 926 (2021).
- ^ Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021).
- ^ Howe, Amy (February 18, 2022). "Justices agree to review Biden's attempt to unwind Trump-era asylum policy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2022.
External links
- Text of Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |