U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to DHS policy (2020)
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
On October 19, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab. The case involves whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) properly implemented a policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The MPP requires people seeking asylum in the United States who travel from a third country through Mexico to return to Mexico while U.S. officials process their requests.
Opponents argue that the MPP violates federal immigration law and international immigration treaties. They also claim that DHS should have gone through notice-and-comment procedures before putting the program into practice.
Supporters of the MPP argue that DHS had the legal authority to make the policy change and that the policy was a general statement of policy, or guidance, exempt from notice-and-comment requirements. They also argue that a district court’s decision to block the policy from going into effect using a universal preliminary injunction was overbroad.
See also
- Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab
- Informal rulemaking
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency control
- Guidance (administrative state)
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Link to the U.S. Supreme Court's October 19, 2020 order list
- Link to the Federal Government's petition for certiorari
Footnotes
