⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit hears an environmental challenge to changes in federal border policy. Steven Chance Smith works on a cattle ranch along the Arizona-Mexico border. He says increased border crossings brought more trash onto the ranch. His lawsuit challenges the Biden administration's decisions to halt border-wall construction and end the Migrant Protection Protocols, often called Remain in Mexico. He contends DHS should first have examined the environmental consequences under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. After President Trump returned to office and directed both programs to resume, the district court dismissed the remaining case as moot: changed circumstances, it concluded, left no effective relief for a court to provide. The appeal also challenges an earlier ruling that DHS's environmental-review manual could not itself be sued over under the Administrative Procedure Act. That law generally requires a final agency action: a completed agency decision with legal consequences. Scott St. John represents Smith and the other appellants. He will argue that DHS's broader policy of skipping environmental review remains open to challenge even if individual decisions have changed. Erika Norman represents DHS. She will argue that the policy reversals ended the dispute and that the manual is not a reviewable final agency action.

Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. DHS (No. 25-5410) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 5, 2026.