Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab
Docket number: 19-1212
Term: 2020
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Decided: June 21, 2021
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh


This article is about the court case previously known as Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab. It became Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab when Alejandro Mayorkas became secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab is a case concerning the legality of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the "remain in Mexico policy," implemented by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in January 2019.[1] The court dismissed the case after Joe Biden (D) became president and ended the MPP.[2][3]

The case had been scheduled for argument on March 1, 2021, before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2020-2021 term. On February 3, 2021, the court granted a request to remove the case from its argument calendar.[4] The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A group of asylum-seekers and immigration nonprofit organizations sued DHS after the agency implemented the MPP, which requires asylum-seekers to return to Mexico while U.S. immigration officials process their requests. A district court issued an injunction blocking the rule, holding that it likely violated federal immigration laws and treaties and that DHS should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking to issue the policy. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court granted DHS's request for a stay, allowing the agency to implement the MPP while the legal challenges worked their way through the courts.
  • The issues:
    "1. Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)
    2. Whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations
    3. Whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking
    4. Whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad"[5]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • Click here to review the lower court's opinion.

    Why it matters: A decision to uphold the MPP might have clarified what actions qualify as agency guidance exempt from APA notice-and-comment requirements. A decision in the case might have also clarified when district courts may issue universal injunctions that block agency actions from going into effect nationwide.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 21, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case.[2]
    • February 3, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court removed the case from its February argument calendar. Oral arguments had been scheduled for March 1, 2021.[4]
    • October 19, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case[5]
    • April 10, 2020: The federal government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
    • March 11, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay, blocking the lower court's injunction against the federal government
    • February 28, 2020: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the federal government and affirmed an injunction against the Migrant Protective Protocols (MPP)[6]
    • April 8, 2019: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a universal preliminary injunction against the MPP, blocking it from going into effect[1]

    Background

    Initial dispute and ruling of the district court

    In January 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instituted new policies for people seeking asylum in the United States who did not come from Mexico. DHS called the policies the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which require such asylum-seekers to return to Mexico while U.S. immigration officials processed their requests. Journalists have referred to the MPP as the "remain in Mexico" policy.[7][8]

    Eleven people who were sent to Mexico under the MPP and six immigration non-profits sued DHS over the policies. Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee serving on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled that the MPP violated the Administrative Procedure Act and federal immigration law. Seeborg granted an injunction, blocking DHS from implementing the MPP.[7]

    Appeal to the Ninth Circuit

    DHS appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against the agency. Judge William Fletcher, a Clinton appointee, wrote the opinion for the court, holding that the MPP violated two separate statutes. The court also affirmed the injunction against the MPP issued by the district court.[6]

    Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court

    On March 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from DHS to stay, or pause, the injunction against the MPP issued by the district court in April 2019. The stay allowed DHS to enforce the MPP while legal challenges worked their way through the court system.[9][8]

    Former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case on April 10, 2020. Francisco argued that the MPP "is a lawful exercise of DHS’s express authority conferred by Congress; it is consistent with any applicable and enforceable nonrefoulement obligations; it is exempt from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement; and in any event the district court’s injunction is vastly overbroad."[1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on October 19, 2020.[10]

    Questions presented

    The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 19, 2020.[10]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)


    2. Whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations


    3. Whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking


    4. Whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad[5][11]

    		”

    Oral argument

    On February 3, 2021, the court granted the United States government's motion to hold further briefings and remove the case from its February argument calendar. Oral arguments had initially been scheduled for March 1, 2021.[4]

    The Biden administration asked the court to remove the case from its argument calendar in light of policy changes enacted on January 20, 2021.[12]

    Outcome

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to dismiss the case on June 21, 2021.[2]

    October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[13]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    Additional reading

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab Petition for a writ of certiorari," April 10, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab, Docket," accessed July 30, 2021
    3. ↑ CNN, "Biden administration formally ends 'remain in Mexico' policy after suspending it earlier this year," June 1, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 592 U.S.," accessed February 3, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 SCOTUSblog, "Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab," accessed October 19, 2020
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Casetext, "Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf," February 28, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 United States District Court Northern District of California, "Innovation Law Lab v. Kirstjen Nielsen," April 8, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 SCOTUSblog, "Court grants government’s request to enforce 'remain in Mexico' policy," March 11, 2020
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List, March 11, 2020
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List," October 19, 2020
    11. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 19-1212 MOTION OF THE PETITIONERS TO HOLD THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN ABEYANCE AND TO REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE FEBRUARY 2021 ARGUMENT CALENDAR," accessed February 4, 2021
    13. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mayorkas_v._Innovation_Law_Lab&oldid=8904888"