Biden v. Texas

Summary

The Court held that terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols did not violate 8 U.S.C. §1225 because contiguous-territory return is discretionary, even assuming the Government is violating its detention obligations. It also held that §1252(f)(1) barred the District Court’s injunction without eliminating subject matter jurisdiction, and that DHS’s October 29 memoranda constituted new final agency action rather than impermissible post hoc rationalizations. The Court reversed and remanded, leaving arbitrary-and-capricious review of those memoranda to the District Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurred separately, emphasizing executive discretion, reasoned decisionmaking, and deference on foreign-policy judgments. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, would have vacated and remanded on jurisdictional grounds; if reaching the merits, he would have affirmed. Justice Barrett agreed with the majority’s merits analysis but would have vacated and remanded for reconsideration of jurisdiction; Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined her opinion except its first sentence.