Immigration and Citizenship

Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab

In Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, the Supreme Court is considering whether a Trump administration policy authorizing the return of certain noncitizens to Mexico while they await adjudication of their asylum applications violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Case Summary

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes procedures for inspecting and processing applicants for admission at the border and other noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted.  Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C), the federal government may return certain individuals who arrive on land from a territory contiguous to the United States to that territory pending a determination of their admissibility or deportability.  In January 2019, purporting to act pursuant to this statutory authority, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a policy called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), which it has used to return non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait adjudication of their asylum applicants.

A group of asylum seekers and legal services organizations—collectively, Respondents in this case—challenged MPP, arguing that the policy is unlawful as applied to individuals, like the asylum-seeking Respondents, who are eligible for expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) of the INA.  A federal district court agreed and enjoined MPP, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Chad Wolf, former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court agreed to do so.  CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondents urging the Court to affirm the ruling of the court below.

Our brief argues that MPP violates the text and history of our immigration laws by authorizing DHS to return individuals to Mexico who are expressly exempt from contiguous territory return.

Our brief first explains that the plain text of § 1225 bars the application of MPP to individuals who are eligible for expedited removal pursuant to § 1225(b)(1).  Section 1225 divides applicants for admission into two discrete categories: § 1225(b)(1) applicants and § 1225(b)(2) applicants.  Subsection (b)(2)(C), which authorizes MPP, applies only to “an alien described in subparagraph [(b)(2)](A).”  Subsection (b)(2)(A), by its explicit terms, “shall not apply to an alien . . . to whom paragraph [(b)](1) applies.”  Thus, individuals like the individual Respondents to whom § 1225(b)(1) “applies” are necessarily excluded from the scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A) and, in turn, § 1225(b)(2)(C).

To support this textual argument, our brief makes three key points.  First, relying on basic principles of grammar and dictionary definitions of “apply,” our brief explains that § 1225(b)(1) “applies” to any person who is eligible for expedited removal (like many asylum seekers), not just anyone that DHS discretionarily places in expedited removal proceedings.  Second, our brief argues that “an alien described in subparagraph [(b)(2)](A),” for whom contiguous territory return is authorized, plainly incorporates the “exception” created in subparagraph (B), which exempts the individual Respondents who are eligible for expedited removal.  As our brief explains, this reading of the statute comports with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nielsen v. Preap.  Third, our brief rebuts the government’s argument that the only purpose of § 1225(b)(2)(B)(ii), the subsection of § 1225(b)(2) that creates the exception for § 1225(b)(1) applicants like the individual Respondents, is to “clarify” that such applicants are not entitled to full removal proceedings.  Because § 1225(b)(1) already makes that point clear, the only way to give § 1225(b)(2)(B)(ii) independent meaning in the statutory scheme is to read it as operating to bar contiguous territory return for § 1225(b)(1) applicants.

Finally, our brief argues that the structure and history of § 1225 support a plain reading of the statute as barring MPP for § 1225(b)(1) asylum seekers.  When Congress first authorized contiguous territory return for § 1225(b)(2) applicants, it also created special protections for asylum seekers.  Those protections highlight the special solicitude for asylum seekers embedded in our immigration laws.  Congress designed contiguous territory return to ease the burden on our country’s immigration system, but, recognizing the unique dangers faced by asylum seekers, it chose not to authorize contiguous territory return for them.

Effective January 21, 2021, the Biden Administration suspended new enrollments in MPP, but as of the filing of our brief on January 22, 2021, this case remains on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Case Timeline

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Sanchez v. Mayorkas

In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Immigration and Nationality Act permits eligible individuals who have received Temporary Protected Status to adjust to lawful-permanent-resident status even though they were not inspected...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2021

RELEASE: New Court Challenge Says Trump Anti-Asylum Rule “Unlawful, Unconstitutional, Invalid” 

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), together with co-counsel, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brian R. Frazelle
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Tahirih Justice Center v. Gaynor

Challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to dramatically restrict eligibility for asylum through a regulation that was approved by an illegally serving Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
Immigration and Citizenship
November 14, 2020

RELEASE: Victory For DACA Recipients

WASHINGTON -- On news of the ruling in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, Constitutional Accountability Center...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

New York v. Department of Homeland Security; Make the Road NY v. Cuccinelli

In New York v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering the legality of an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Make the Road New York v. Wolf

In Make the Road New York v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to drastically expand...