Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. - Date Argued: 04/29/26

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. - Date Argued: 04/29/26

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell - Date Argued: 04/27/26

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell - Date Argued: 04/27/26

Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

Chatrie v. United State - Date Argued: 04/27/26

Chatrie v. United State - Date Argued: 04/27/26

Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau: Date Argued - 04/22/26

Facts The case involves a challenge to the Biden administration's efforts to dismantle a Trump-era immigration program known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy (officially the Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP). The policy required certain asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico for their immigration court hearings. The Biden administration sought to terminate the program in 2021, but federal courts in Texas and Missouri blocked those efforts, finding that the administration had not adequately considered the policy's benefits or followed proper procedures. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Biden v. Texas (2022) that the administration had the authority to end the program, but lower courts continued to entertain challenges from states claiming they would suffer harm from increased immigration. The current case, brought by the states of Texas and Missouri, argues that the administration's latest termination attempt still violates federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1225) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Acting Attorney General Blanche defends the administration's position that the executive branch has broad discretion over immigration enforcement and that MPP is no longer necessary or operationally feasible. The district court sided with the states and ordered the reinstatement of MPP, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether states have standing to challenge the termination and whether the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously.