This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Biden et al.)
According to Petitioners (General Prelogar), according to Petitioners (General Prelogar), the Secretary of Homeland Security exercised discretionary authority and erred in ordering DHS to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) despite the costs.
According to General Prelogar, Congress focused on detention issues and expected the new expedited removal provisions to alleviate detention strain.
According to General Prelogar, the word “shall” properly means that the government should use the detention capacity that has been afforded.
According to General Prelogar, statutory release authorities are being used in conformance with the INA.
Respondent (Texas)
According to Respondents, Texas asserts that the October 29 termination decision constitutes a new agency action.
Texas brings arbitrary and capricious APA claims.
United States
The United States argued statutory points relating to sections 1182 and 1225.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2147b66f4c69fc62f102-r1-166258bcddf0eccd.pdforal argument transcript
- 471e55608ffb47334edd-r1-6617eaffedbd3ab7.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.