Remain in Mexico no more

By Elket Rodríguez

Click to download a PDF of this graphic.

Remain in Mexico no more. In the midst of so much legal uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Biden v. Texas that the President has discretionary authority to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as the Remain in Mexico policy or MPP.

For immigrants, volunteers, border pastors and immigration advocates Biden v. Texas is a relief. But what exactly did the court rule? And what does it entail moving forward?

Well, among other controversies, the court ruled that when a law says “may,” it really means “may”. The provision in question was section 1225(b)(2)(C) which provides that: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [DHS Secretary] may return the alien to that territory… pending proceedings…”

Texas argued that “may” meant “must”. Conversely, the President must enroll immigrants arriving into the U.S. in MPP. Texas also argued the President’s other options were to detain, expel, or deport them, but never release them into U.S. territory, pending immigration proceedings. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the oral arguments, “…it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the Secretary…”.

What escapes most headlines is that this decision was 5-4. I believe that no legal training is needed to understand that “may” is not “must,” and therefore discretionary.

The decision relieves migrants from appearing at multiple immigration court hearings that stretch across months, even years. Also, it reduces the chances of those immigrants subject to MPP from being kidnapped, raped and exploited while they await for their cases to be resolved.

The ruling also benefits Mexican migrant shelters from the costs and constrains of assisting migrants for months and years while their MPP cases come to a resolution. While the decision does not mean that Remain in Mexico cannot be implemented ever again, it is a temporary victory for the human right to seek asylum. At this point, I’ll take it.