Biden v. Texas
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Biden v. Texas and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Biden v. Texas.
In Biden v. Texas, the Supreme Court reviewed the termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) by the Biden administration. The Court found that the rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action. The case involved issues of executive power, administrative law, and judicial review.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Biden v. Texas.
The Court held that the Government's rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Biden v. Texas. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Biden v. Texas
The case involves the Court's power to review and invalidate government action, specifically the termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The questions presented are whether the Government's rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether the Government's second termination of the policy was a valid final agency action.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Biden v. Texas
The case examines the scope of the Executive's authority to terminate a program affecting immigration policy.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The foreign affairs consequences of mandating the exercise of contiguous-territory return likewise confirm that the Court of Appeals erred.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Biden v. Texas
The case involves constitutional limits on agency authority, including the requirement for reasoned decision-making under the APA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court of Appeals also erred in holding that '[t]he October 29 Memoranda did not constitute a new and separately reviewable `final agency action.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Biden v. Texas that support the summary and concepts above.
The Government's rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA.
The October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico.
