Term: 2021
Docket: 21-954
Biden v. Texas
- Pro
21-954 BIDEN V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 20 F.4th 928 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case concerns the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a former policy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under which certain noncitizens arriving at the southwest border were returned to Mexico during their immigration proceedings. On June 1, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum terminating MPP. The district court vacated the Secretary's termination decision and remanded the matter to the agency on two grounds: (1) that terminating MPP violates 8 U.S.C. 1225 because DHS lacks capacity to detain all the inadmissible noncitizens it encounters who purportedly must be detained under that provision, and (2) that the Secretary had not adequately explained his decision. The court entered a permanent injunction requiring DHS to reinstate and maintain MPP unless Congress funds sufficient detention capacity for DHS to detain all noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225 and until the agency adequately explained a future termination. On October 29, 2021, after thoroughly reconsidering the matter on remand, the Secretary issued a new decision terminating MPP and providing a comprehensive explanation for the decision. The court of appeals nevertheless affirmed the injunction, endorsing the district court's reading of Section 1225 and holding that the Secretary's new decision could not be considered because it had no legal effect. The questions presented are: 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. 1225 requires DHS to continue implementing MPP. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the Secretary's new decision terminating MPP had no legal effect. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-10806 THE CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE SECOND WEEK OF THE APRIL 2022 ARGUMENT SESSION. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. ORDER OF MAY 2, 2022: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: (1) WHETHER 8 U. S. C. §1252(f)(1) IMPOSES ANY JURISDICTIONAL OR REMEDIAL LIMITATIONS ON THE ENTRY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, OR RELIEF UNDER 5 U. S. C. §706. (2) WHETHER SUCH LIMITATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE. (3) WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 2/18/2022
In Biden v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a lawsuit brought by Texas and other states challenging President Joe Biden's executive order on immigration was not justiciable in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the president had exceeded his authority under both federal law and the Constitution when he issued an executive order suspending certain deportations for 100 days. However, the Court found that because no individual or entity had been harmed by this action, there was no case or controversy before it to decide upon; thus, it dismissed the suit as non-justiciable. Furthermore, even if there were a live dispute between parties with adverse interests over which a court could have jurisdiction to hear such claims against presidential actions related to foreign affairs and national security matters are generally considered non-justiciable due to their political nature. As such, this ruling serves as an important reminder of judicial restraint in cases involving questions of foreign policy and national security issues where courts should be hesitant about intervening without clear evidence of harm caused by governmental action.
In Biden v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether Texas’s voter identification law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The majority opinion held that the law did not violate the Voting Rights Act, and the dissent argued that the law did violate the Act. The dissent argued that the law imposed an undue burden on minority voters, as it required them to obtain a form of identification that was not easily accessible to them. The dissent also argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. Furthermore, the dissent argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. The dissent argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. The dissent also argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. The dissent further argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. The dissent concluded that the law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and should be struck down. The dissent argued that the law imposed an undue burden on minority voters, as it required them to obtain a form of identification that was not easily accessible to them. The dissent also argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the state had failed to provide evidence that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. The dissent concluded that the law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and should be struck down.
