Held: The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action. Pp. 8–25.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but the first sentence
And Biden gets a win on the final decision of the term.
Preliminarily, the majority decision seems to comport with the intent of the statute, but I am still reading this decision, so haven’t reached a final personal opinion yet.
the problem here is there are three statutes, and taken together they provide a road map for how to handle illegal immigration. but the courts only look at one at a time.
1st, illegal immigrants must be detained.
2nd, from those detained, the administration may release them on a case by case basis if it would be a benefit to the country
3rd, they may be sent back to a third country to await a hearing
clearly the three statutes taken together create an orderly process (one trump followed)
However, the catch is with point 3 and the word “may”. The statute says “may”, not “shall”, thus Biden was within his rights to rescind the policy, which the court so ruled.
Trump’s policy was permissible, but since the statute gives the executive discretion, Biden’s repeal of the policy was also permissible.
The only way to make a policy like Trump’s permanent is for Congress to amend the statute, changing “may” to “shall”.
i said taken together they outline a process. and they do. the problem is they don’t tie the three statutes together. if they did, the intent is clear. the courts however do exactly what you did, they look at one statute and rule on that disregarding the other statutes. and so long as they do, “may” rules. shall would be a better rule, but it wouldn’t change a thing, the administration still wouldn’t do it.
btw, i just read a portion of alito’s dissent in another thread. and he agrees with what i said. the statutes show the clear intent of the congress.
