Whether MPP is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case concerns a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which applies to aliens who have no legal entitlement to enter the United States but who depart from a third country and transit through Mexico to reach the United States land border. MPP is an exercise of DHS’s express authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to return those aliens temporarily to Mexico during the pendency of their removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C). The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction barring DHS from implementing MPP. The court of appeals affirmed. The courts concluded that MPP likely violates the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The questions presented are: 1. Whether MPP is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C). 2. Whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations. 3. Whether MPP is exempt from the APA requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking. 4. Whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad. (D)