Original Date Announced

DHS announces the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), invoking INA § 235(b)(2)(C). Under MPP, individuals who are nationals and citizens of designated countries other than Mexico (third-country nationals) arriving in the United States by land from Mexico, between ports of entry or without documentation, may be returned to Mexico to wait for the duration of their immigration proceedings. [ID #63]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DHS Memorandum: Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols

DHS's policy guidance details Secretary Nielsen's legal justification for the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) under INA section 235(b)(2)(C), categorizing the policy as prosecutorial discretion. MPP allows DHS to return citizens and nationals of countries other than Mexico who arrive in the United States by land from Mexico -- without inspection or without proper documentation -- to Mexico during the pendency of their removal proceedings.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Press Release: Secretary Nielsen Orders CBP to Surge More Personnel to Southern Border, Increase Number of Aliens Returned to Mexico

DHS Secretary Nielsen issues a memorandum to CBP outlining new steps the agency must take, including reassigning hundreds of CBP personnel to the southern border and expanding the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), to return asylum seekers to Mexico during the pendency of their U.S. immigration proceedings.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

AP: 900 asylum seekers returned to wait in Mexican border city

Pursuant to MPP, the U.S. government has reportedly sent approximately 3,000 people with pending U.S. immigration proceedings to wait in Mexico’s Tamaulipas state. According to the Tamaulipas state immigration office, the United States is sending back groups of 50 to 100 migrants almost daily to the border city of Matamoros. MPP implementation began at the San Ysidro port of entry on or about January 28, 2019.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Policy Brief: DHS and DOJ Are Opening Secretive Port Courts Along the Southern Border

AILA reports that DHS is building massive temporary tent facilities in Laredo and Brownsville, TX, that will function as virtual immigration courtrooms for MPP cases, with many of the detailed immigration judges adjudicating cases via video teleconferencing (VTC). See also, Washington Post: "Along Texas border, Trump administration sets up tent courts for virtual asylum hearings," (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/along-texas-border-trump-administration-sets-up-tent-courts-for-virtual-asylum-hearings/2019/09/18/f29d1326-d9bc-11e9-adff-79254db7f766_story.html.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DHS Expands MPP Operations to Eagle Pass

DHS will implement MPP at the Eagle Pass, TX port of entry, increasing to six the number of ports of entry engaged in implementing MPP. According to DHS, the Mexican Government has agreed to "accept returns." Asylum seekers attend immigration hearings at a temporary hearing facility in Laredo, TX. For a news report, see https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_immigration_us-adds-sixth-city-controversial-remain-mexico-program/6178487.html

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

The Migrant Protection Protocols Red Team Report

DHS officials drafted an internal "Red Team" report (leaked to Buzzfeed News) identifying serious problems in the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DHS Begins MPP Returns at Nogales Port of Entry in Arizona

DHS begins processing migrants for return to Mexico under MPP at the Nogales Port of Entry south of Tucson, Arizona. This brings the total number of MPP ports of entry to seven.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Response to the Migration Protection Protocols Red Team Report

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DHS expands MPP to Brazilian nationals

DHS began processing Brazilian migrants for return to Mexico under MPP.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

ACLU | Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf

A federal district court preliminarily enjoined MPP on April 8, 2019. The Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal, and then affirmed the injunction on Feb. 28, 2020. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction on Mar. 11, 2020, and granted certiorari on Oct. 19, 2020. Oral argument scheduled for Feb. 2021 was postponed and then dismissed as moot at the new administration's request. The district court subsequently vacated the preliminary injunction on August 06, 2021. The parties stipulated to dismiss the action on October 31, 2023. See Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00807) (9th Cir. 19-15716) (SCOTUS 19-1212).

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf - Complaint (Oct. 28, 2020)

On October 28th, 2020, a group of organizational plaintiffs and a class of asylum seekers filed another challenge to the MPP policy. Although overlapping with other lawsuits, this one also argues that the policy violates asylum seekers' "First Amendment rights to hire and consult an attorney and petition," and Fifth Amendment due process rights. See Immigrant Defenders Law Center et al. v. Wolf et al., (N.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-09893).

On November 2, 2020, the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a new challenge to the MPP policy, seeking relief for asylum-seekers with disabilities. See E.A.R.R. v. DHS (S.D. Cal. 3:20-cv-02146).

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Supplemental Policy Guidance for Additional Improvement of the Migrant Protection Protocols

DHS issues supplemental policy guidance on MPP. The guidance, which does not replace previous guidance, provides additional information on counsel participation in non-refoulement assessments (where it does not delay the interview), appeals processes, the treatment of family units, including mixed-nationality family units, the treatment of unaccompanied minors, exemptions from MPP for medical and mental health reasons, the use of restraints when transporting migrants, and interagency collaboration.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

ImmDef v. DHS Press Release

Immigrant Defenders and RAICES with Justice Action Center and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a lawsuit seeking to protect the statutory and constitutional due process rights of unaccompanied immigrant children.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2021.08.13 Texas v. Biden, Case No. 2:21-cv-00067-Z (N.D. Texas, Aug. 13, 2021).

On August 13, 2021, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, enjoined the Biden administration's June 1, 2021, memo terminating MPP, requiring the Biden administration to re-start MPP with monthly status reports to the court.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Texas v. Biden, No. 21-10806 (5th Cir., Aug. 19, 2021).

On August 19, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay of Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunction pending appeal. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the government retains the option to parole asylum seekers into the U.S. and is not limited to "return to Mexico or detain," as the district court had stated.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Biden v. Texas, No. 21A21 (U.S., August 20, 2021).

On August 20, 2021, Justice Alito temporarily stayed Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunction until August 24, 2021, "so that the full Court can consider the application."

On August 24, the Supreme Court denied the government's motion for an emergency stay.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2021.12.13 (revised 2021.12.21) Texas v. Biden, No. 21-10806 (5th Cir., Dec. 13, 2021).

On December 13, 2021, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court and denied the government's motion to vacate and remand for further proceedings given its second termination memo attempting to rescind MPP.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2022.06.30 21-954 Biden v. Texas

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued Biden v. Texas, reversing the Fifth Circuit and remanding the case. The Court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction, that rescinding the MPP program did not violate the INA, and that the Biden administration's October 2021 memo rescinding the program for a second time was final agency action that the district court should have reviewed. The case was remanded for further proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2022.08.08 Texas v. Biden NDTX order vacating injunction

On August 8, 2022, the Northern District of Texas vacated its 2021 injunction ordering MPP's reimplementation. The injunction was vacated in accordance with the Supreme Court's June 30, 2022 decision in Biden v. Texas.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2023.10.31 Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen Settlement Agreement

Parties reach a settlement agreement in Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and co-counsel on February 14, 2019, challenging the Trump Administration's Migrant Protection Protocols. Under the agreement, the government agreed, among other things, to accept parole and parole-in-place requests from individual plaintiffs, to not detain applicants presenting at the border except in certain circumstances, to expedite Employment Authorization Document requests, and to waive certain fees. Parole and re-parole requests will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). The settlement involves no admission of wrongdoing by the government or concession as to any of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed with prejudice, but the district court will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the terms of the agreement.

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Court order clarifies its retention of jurisdiction for 3 years to enforce settlement

On April 11, 2024, in response to a motion by the plaintiffs in in Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen following dismissal of the action, the district court clarified that it closed the case to give effect to the parties' stipulation and it was the intention of the parties that the court could exercise jurisdiction over a three-year period to enforce the settlement agreement, if necessary, without the need for a new action.

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.01.31 Texas v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-00067-Z (N.D. Tex.) - Joint Brief on Reinstatement of MPP

In light of MPP's reinstatement, the parties in Texas v. Biden filed a joint brief requesting "the court hold this case in abeyance for 180 days while incoming leadership" at DHS "assess[] this case and how to proceed." Notably, this filing represents to the court that MPP will within 180 days "be operational."

** Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**