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.
- Guidance (administrative state)
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency dynamics
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Informal rulemaking
- Executive agency
- Administrative State
Link to the October 19 SCOTUS order list
Link to the U.S. Government petition for certiorari
Link to the Ninth Circuit opinion