Supreme Court Weighs “Remain in Mexico” — What’s at Stake and What It Means for Asylum Seekers

When the Supreme Court agreed to review the “Remain in Mexico” policy—formally the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—it put a spotlight on whether the federal government can require non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases proceed. It also examined how administrations may start, suspend, or end that policy. Launched in 2019, MPP returned tens of thousands to Mexican border cities to await hearings. This drew human-rights concerns over kidnappings and violence in encampments.

The legal fight turned on statutory authority and procedure: Did Department of Homeland Security have to keep MPP running because detention space is limited? Or could it terminate the program by issuing reasoned memoranda under the Administrative Procedure Act? In Biden v. Texas (2022), the Court ultimately held DHS can end MPP if it follows proper process. This clarified executive flexibility even as lower courts continue to police the agency’s explanations.

For families at the border, the Court’s review (and later ruling) mattered less as an abstract separation-of-powers question. It mattered more as a life-or-death logistics issue: whether people with credible protection claims must remain in places where advocates documented widespread assaults, or may pursue cases inside the U.S. while checking in for court dates.

If MPP (or an MPP-like policy) is active in your sector:

• Ask how you’ll be notified of hearings (port of entry, date, and time) and keep every paper—NTAs, tear sheets, and any DHS handouts.
• Document danger in Mexico (police reports, medical records, affidavits) to support fear-of-return claims that may exempt you from returns.
• Prioritize counsel for merits preparation; remote consults and legal orientation programs can reduce missed appearances.

If MPP is terminated where you are:

• Expect processing bottlenecks as cases re-enter the U.S. docket. Monitor official notices for entry coordination and check-in procedures; wind-downs have at times left people waiting weeks for safe passage.

Bottom line: The Supreme Court’s involvement defines who decides and how—but for migrants, the practical stakes are safety, notice, and due process. Track official guidance and build a decision-ready asylum record now.