Neither fully terminated nor fully reinstated, the policy remains in limbo
In the long and contested effort to define what a nation owes those who arrive at its borders seeking safety, a federal judge in Texas has once again paused the Biden administration's attempt to close the chapter on the 'Remain in Mexico' policy. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's stay — neither reinstating the policy nor permitting its full termination — leaves tens of thousands of asylum-seekers suspended in legal and physical uncertainty. The ruling reflects a deeper tension in American governance: the question of who holds the authority to shape the terms of belonging, and whether that authority was exercised with sufficient care.
- A federal judge in Amarillo has frozen the Biden administration's termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols, reigniting a legal battle that has outlasted multiple court rulings and a Supreme Court decision.
- The stay creates a disorienting limbo — the policy is neither alive nor dead — leaving immigration officials, border states, and asylum-seekers without a clear path forward.
- Judge Kacsmaryk, who previously ordered the policy reinstated in 2021, found that the administration's October 2021 memo likely failed to adequately weigh the policy's claimed benefits, meeting the threshold for an 'arbitrary and capricious' violation.
- Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling as vindication, while the Department of Homeland Security remained silent, and the administration weighs whether to appeal.
- For the roughly 70,000 asylum-seekers who have lived under this policy — waiting in dangerous Mexican border towns with limited legal help — the ruling prolongs a humanitarian uncertainty that critics call unconscionable.
A federal judge in Texas temporarily halted the Biden administration's effort to end the Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' asylum policy on Thursday, adding another chapter to one of the most protracted immigration legal battles in recent memory. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, based in Amarillo, stayed the termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols while lawsuits from Texas and Missouri proceed — though he stopped short of ordering the policy reinstated, leaving its immediate practical effect unclear.
The ruling is the latest turn in a years-long saga. Biden suspended the policy on his first day in office, calling it contrary to American values, but courts have repeatedly intervened. Kacsmaryk himself had ordered the policy reinstated in 2021, and the administration complied in limited fashion, sending only a few thousand people back to wait in Mexico. This past June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Biden did have the authority to end the policy — but sent the case back to Kacsmaryk to determine whether the termination was 'arbitrary and capricious' under federal law.
In a 35-page opinion, Kacsmaryk concluded that an October 2021 administration memo likely did meet that standard, finding that officials had failed to adequately account for the policy's claimed benefits — including its effect on illegal immigration and what the ruling described as 'unmeritorious asylum claims.' Texas Governor Greg Abbott quickly declared the decision a victory. The Department of Homeland Security did not comment.
The policy, launched in January 2019, forced approximately 70,000 asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases moved through U.S. immigration courts. Advocates have long condemned it as dangerous, citing the extreme violence migrants faced in border towns and the near-impossibility of securing legal representation from abroad. The Biden administration may yet appeal, but for now the policy remains in suspension — unresolved, and still shaping lives on both sides of the border.
A federal judge in Texas brought the Biden administration's effort to dismantle a Trump-era asylum policy to a halt on Thursday, at least temporarily. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, sitting in Amarillo, stayed the termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols—better known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy—while legal challenges from Texas and Missouri work their way through the courts. The judge did not order the policy reinstated, leaving the immediate practical impact uncertain.
The ruling marks another twist in a legal saga that has consumed years and multiple levels of the judiciary. When President Biden took office, he suspended the policy on his first day, calling it fundamentally at odds with American values as a nation of immigrants. But the courts have repeatedly intervened. Kacsmaryk himself, a Trump appointee, had ordered the policy reinstated in 2021. The Biden administration complied with that order after negotiating changes with Mexico, though it did not enforce the policy broadly—only a few thousand people were actually sent back to wait in Mexico under the reinstatement.
The Supreme Court weighed in this past June, ruling 5-4 that Biden did have the authority to end the policy. But the justices sent the case back to Kacsmaryk to resolve a narrower question: whether the administration's termination was "arbitrary and capricious," a legal standard that would determine if the executive branch had violated federal law in how it crafted the decision to end the program.
In a 35-page ruling, Kacsmaryk concluded that an October 2021 memo laying out the administration's latest rationale for termination likely did violate that standard. The judge found that the administration had failed to adequately consider the policy's purported benefits, including its effect on reducing illegal immigration and what the ruling called "unmeritorious asylum claims." This reasoning became the basis for the stay.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott seized on the decision immediately, tweeting that it was "common sense" to require asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico and declaring victory, at least for the moment. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The policy itself, introduced in January 2019, forced roughly 70,000 asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were processed in U.S. immigration court. Critics have long argued the practice was inhumane, exposing vulnerable migrants to extreme violence in Mexican border towns and making it far harder for them to access legal representation. Trump made it a centerpiece of his border enforcement strategy.
The Biden administration may appeal Kacsmaryk's latest ruling, but the legal path forward remains murky. What is clear is that the policy remains in limbo—neither fully terminated nor fully reinstated—while the courts continue to litigate whether the government acted properly in trying to end it.
Citações Notáveis
It goes against everything we stand for as a nation of immigrants— President Biden, on the Remain in Mexico policy
It's a common sense policy to prevent people from entering our country illegally. Texas wins again, for now.— Texas Governor Greg Abbott, after the ruling
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a judge get to decide whether the administration can end a policy it inherited and opposes?
Because federal law requires that when agencies make major decisions, they have to explain their reasoning in a way that's not arbitrary. The Supreme Court said Biden can end it, but this judge is saying the way they explained why they were ending it didn't meet that legal standard.
So the policy is back in effect now?
Not quite. The judge froze the termination, but didn't order it reinstated. It's suspended in place—which creates real confusion for immigration officials and the people waiting to know what happens next.
How many people are actually affected right now?
That's the thing—when the policy was briefly reinstated before, only a few thousand people were sent back to Mexico, even though the judge's order technically applied to everyone. The administration was dragging its feet on enforcement.
What's the human cost of waiting in Mexico?
Migrants face serious violence, limited access to lawyers, and months of uncertainty. That's why Biden called it contrary to American values in the first place. But the courts keep finding technical reasons to keep it alive.
Will this actually stick?
Probably not. The Supreme Court already said Biden has the power to end it. This is just one judge saying the paperwork wasn't done right. The administration will likely appeal and try again.