Biden v. Texas

Last updated

Biden v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 26, 2022
Decided June 30, 2022
Full case nameJoseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Docket no. 21-954
Citations597 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior
Holding
The Government's rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
DissentAlito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch
DissentBarrett, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch (all but first sentence)
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

Contents

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 It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment as moot in June after the government rescinded MPP.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. On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit by a 5–4 vote and held that the federal government has the authority to revoke the Migrant Protection Protocols. It was ruled that the 1996 law which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, and which was used to justify the authority Congress had over the Remain in Mexico policy, did not deny the President the authority to end the protocols. [12] [13] [14]

Aftermath

The case was then returned to the lower courts for additional proceedings determining whether the Biden administration's action was "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. On December 15, 2022, U.S. district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk prevented the Biden administration from officially ending the program by ruling that the policy should stay in place while legal challenges play out. [15] However, Kacsmaryk did not order the policy reinstated. [16] In February 2023, Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced it rejects any efforts to reinstate the policy for asylum-seekers. [17]

Related Research Articles

Emilio Miller Garza is a former United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

<i>Muntaqim v. Coombe</i> American legal case

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who was serving a life sentence at the time, argued that the law had a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge (born 1950)

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute, a senior circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John M. Rogers</span> American judge (born 1948)

John Marshall Rogers is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fortunato Benavides</span> American judge (1947–2023)

Fortunato Pedro Benavides was an American judge. From 1994 until 2023, he served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Matheson Jr.</span> American judge (born 1953)

Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge (born 1965)

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jon S. Tigar</span> American judge (born 1962)

Jon Steven Tigar is an American lawyer serving as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was previously a California state court judge on the Alameda County Superior Court from 2002 to 2013.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, a claim of trademark dilution requires proof of actual dilution, not merely a likelihood of dilution. This decision was later superseded by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA).

Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthew J. Kacsmaryk</span> American judge (born 1977)

Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ( 1977) is a United States district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017 and sworn in for the position in 2019. In 2023, he presided over a lawsuit regarding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of abortion medication mifepristone in 2000, and had issued a preliminary ruling suspending the approval of the drug, marking the first time a court tried to invalidate the approval of a drug over the FDA's objection.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Biden v. Sierra Club was a United States Supreme Court case involving the appropriation of funds used to expand the Mexico–United States barrier under the presidency of Donald Trump, colloquially known as the Trump wall. Congress did not grant direct appropriations to fund expansion of the wall, leading Trump to sign the National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States in February 2019 which, citing his powers under the National Emergency Act, took approximately US$8 billion of funds appropriated to military spending towards construction of the wall. Numerous states and non-governmental organizations filed suit shortly after the order, resulting in a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the transfer of funds inappropriate under the Appropriations Clause and leading to the Supreme Court challenge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drew B. Tipton</span> American judge (born 1967)

Drew Barnett Tipton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Remain in Mexico is a United States immigration policy originally implemented in January 2019 under the administration of President Donald Trump, affecting immigration across the border with Mexico. Administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it requires migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico until their US immigration court date.

United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to federal immigration law.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is a pending United States Supreme Court case to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in medical abortion procedures. The plaintiffs, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), argue that the FDA did not properly approve the use of the drug mifepristone for pregnancy termination under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations and ask for an injunction to withdraw the drug's approval, thus removing it from the market.

References

  1. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, 366F. Supp. 3d1110 (N.D. Cal.2019).
  2. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924F.3d503 (9th Cir.2019).
  3. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf , 951F.3d1073 (9th Cir.2020).
  4. ↑ Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf , 951F.3d986 (9th Cir.2020).
  5. ↑ Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab,141S. Ct.617(2020).
  6. ↑ Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab,141S. Ct.2842(2021).
  7. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 554F. Supp. 3d818 (N.D. Tex.2021).
  8. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 10F.4th538 (5th Cir.2021).
  9. ↑ Biden v. Texas, 142S. Ct.926 (2021).
  10. ↑ Texas v. Biden, 20F.4th928 (5th Cir.2021).
  11. ↑ Howe, Amy (February 18, 2022). "Justices agree to review Biden's attempt to unwind Trump-era asylum policy". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved February 18, 2022.
  12. ↑ Blitzer, Ronn (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy". Fox News. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  13. ↑ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court says Biden can end "Remain in Mexico" rule for asylum-seekers". CBS News. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  14. ↑ Zampa, Peter (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court backs Biden administration in immigration policy rollback". KCBD. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
  15. ↑ Gans, Jared (December 15, 2022). "Federal judge prevents Biden from ending Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy". The Hill. Retrieved December 17, 2022.
  16. ↑ "Judge blocks Biden bid to end 'Remain in Mexico' policy". Associated Press. December 16, 2022. Retrieved December 16, 2022.
  17. ↑ Garcia, Amando; Owen, Quinn (February 7, 2023). "Mexico rejects any effort to reinstate 'remain in Mexico' policy for asylum-seekers". ABC News. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.