Frequently asked questions: “Remain in Mexico” policy
After the reimplementation of the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program,
The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the lower court rulings. Lawyers for the administration argued that the federal appeals court that upheld a Texas federal district judge’s ruling had offered
“novel and erroneous interpretations” of immigration and administrative laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider (or be asked to review) a ruling about the Migrant Protection Protocols (commonly called “Remain in Mexico”) signals that the issue could be resolved at the highest federal level. A Supreme Court review can produce a final, nationwide precedent that either upholds, narrows, or reverses lower-court decisions — with direct consequences for asylum seekers, border enforcement, and litigation strategy nationwide. Therefore, practitioners and affected people should monitor developments closely and prepare for multiple outcomes.
What the review process looks like
- Grant or deny certiorari: The Court may decline to hear the case (leaving lower-court rulings in place) or grant review and set a briefing and argument schedule.
- Briefing & oral argument: If granted, parties file briefs and the Court schedules argument; the timeline can span months.
- Final decision: The Court’s ruling, once issued, is binding nationwide and resolves the questions it accepts for review.
Potential practical effects
- If the Court upholds the program: the government may gain clearer authority to operate MPP-like protocols under the Court’s articulated limits.
- If the Court strikes it down: MPP could be declared unlawful nationwide, affecting removal-processing at many ports and reopening some relief avenues for affected people.
- If the Court narrows the ruling: expect case-by-case limits or standards governing placement into MPP.
Immediate steps for individuals & families
- Preserve records of all MPP-related interactions (notices, hearing dates, CBP/ICE contacts, sponsor letters, medical records).
- Keep contact info current for counsel and sponsors — rapid filings may become possible if policy changes.
- Gather corroborating evidence of persecution or credible-fear issues (affidavits, country reports, medical/police records).
- Get legal help early — policy shifts often prompt immediate legal windows and intake surges.
Practical steps for practitioners & clinics
- Track the certiorari docket and set alerts; be ready to file amicus briefs or client motions if the Court grants review.
- Preserve client files and MPP notices to support motions to reopen, credible-fear claims, or class remedies.
- Prepare model motion-to-reopen packets and intake scripts for newly eligible clients.
- Coordinate with local partners (legal services, shelters) on contingency intake workflows and outreach.
FAQs
Q: Will the Supreme Court decision be immediate?
A: No — certiorari, briefing, oral argument, and a final opinion typically take months.
Q: Does a grant of review change things right away?
A: Not until a decision issues, though parties often seek temporary stays or relief in lower courts while the case proceeds.
How we help
We monitor the certiorari docket, prepare motion-to-reopen and stay packets, draft mass intake materials, and coordinate rapid-response clinic workflows. Request a Motion-to-Reopen template, a one-page Client Intake Alert, or an Amicus brief summary
