LOS ANGELES, CA – The United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Biden v. Texas, holding  that the Biden administration's decision to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy, did not violate federal immigration law, and the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ second memorandum terminating the program was a valid final agency action. The case now returns to the lower courts to determine whether Mayorkas’ second memorandum terminating MPP complies with administrative law.

For years MPP has done what it was designed to do: closed the door to people seeking asylum. Despite the Biden Administration's attempt to terminate the program over a year ago, two states, one of which lacks an international border, forced the Biden Administration to reimplement MPP nationwide. To be clear: for over one year, the states of Texas and Missouri, through the use of a nationwide injunction, were allowed to dictate federal immigration policy. 

In an amicus brief in Biden v. Texas, CILP, together with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, argued that states shouldn’t be allowed to dictate federal immigration policy in this way, and that regardless of whether SCOTUS agreed with Texas and Missouri, the Court should reign in anti-immigrant states’ ability to obtain nationwide injunctions. 

The Center for Immigration Law and Policy’s Faculty Co-Director Ahilan Arulanantham and Staff Attorney Monika Y. Langarica issued the following statements:

“For years at the border, we have witnessed the devastating impact the Remain in Mexico policy has had on the lives of thousands of people seeking safety. Today’s decision is a win for the movement that has long sought to expose the horrors of MPP. But it’s not a final victory, as the Court’s opinion leaves open a door for MPP to be reinstated. We will continue to demand a complete end to MPP and to all policies that shut the door on people seeking asylum. We will also work to ensure the federal government fully rebuilds the eviscerated US asylum system and to stop Republican-led states from holding hostage national immigration policy.” Monika Y. Langarica, Staff Attorney at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy

“In President Biden’s first year alone, Republican-led states won nationwide injunctions against nearly every significant aspect of the Administration’s immigration policies, including its moratorium on deportations, its enforcement priorities, its attempt to end the Title 42 expulsion order, and, in this case, the termination of the Trump Administration’s Migrant Protection Protocol Program. Today, the Supreme Court has made clear that those injunctions were illegal. The Administration should now move quickly to enforce the Supreme Court’s rule in other areas, including its attempt to rescind Title 42 and its prosecutorial discretion priorities. We will continue to urge courts to confront the overuse of nationwide injunctions sought by hostile states that seek to dictate federal immigration policy at every opportunity, including in Arizona v. CDC, a case that has forced the continued implementation of the deadly Title 42 order.” Ahilan Arulanantham, Faculty Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy

CILP amicus brief in Biden v. Texas

CILP amicus brief Arizona v. CDC

Founded in 2020, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the UCLA School of Law expands the law school's role as a national leader in immigration law and policy, generating innovative ideas at the intersection of immigration scholarship and practice and serving as a hub for transforming those ideas into meaningful changes in immigration policy. 

Follow CILP on Twitter, @UCLA_CILP, or sign up for additional news at bit.ly/CILPnews.