Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Biden v. Texas: The Immigration Statute Did Not Require Continued Use of the MPP Return Authority

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 10, 2026

DHS sought to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols, under which certain non-Mexican applicants arriving from Mexico were returned there during removal proceedings. Texas and Missouri argued that the detention statute required the program to continue.

The contiguous-territory provision is discretionary

Section 1225(b)(2)(C) says DHS may return covered noncitizens to adjacent territory. That authorization does not command the agency to use return whenever detention capacity is insufficient.

A neighboring sovereign's cooperation matters

Return cannot operate unilaterally in practice. Reading the statute as mandatory would force the Executive to negotiate or maintain a program dependent on another nation's acceptance.

Release authority remained part of the statutory framework

The Court rejected the premise that every person who cannot be detained must be returned. The immigration statutes preserve parole authority, even though parole decisions remain constrained by statutory standards.

The later memorandum was reviewable final action

DHS's October termination memorandum represented the agency's definitive position and had legal consequences. The Court treated it as a new final agency action, not merely a post hoc explanation for the earlier memorandum.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish discretionary statutory authority from a mandatory operational duty.
• Account for parole, detention, and return as separate statutory mechanisms.
• Identify the agency document that constitutes final action for APA review.
• Evaluate the practical dependence of a return program on foreign-government cooperation.