Good morning and welcome to Supreme Court Brief. The Biden administration makes its case this morning for revocation of a Trump administration immigration policy–the Migrant Protection Protocols. We take a look at some of the numerous amicus briefs and their counsel. The court, with three justices dissenting, refused to reinstate a district court order blocking a challenged admissions policy at a Virginia high school. The school board's appeal goes forward, but keep an eye on this race-based challenge. Plus, scroll down to read about two interesting petition grants Monday on DNA testing and business jurisdiction.

Thanks for reading. We welcome feedback and tips. Contact Marcia Coyle at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MarciaCoyle. 

A small fence separates densely populated Tijuana, Mexico, right, from the United States in the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector. Construction is underway to extend a secondary fence over the top of this hill and eventually to the Pacific Ocean. Credit: SFC Gordon Hyde/wikipedia

Justices Tackle 'Remain in Mexico'

With immigration being a controversial topic, it's not surprising that this morning's case, Biden v. Texas, has generated a large number of competing amicus briefs, many authored by big law.

In Biden v. Texas, the Biden administration, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, is challenging lower court decisions that federal immigration law requires it to continue implementing the Trump Administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly referred to as the "Remain in Mexico" policy. It also argues the courts were wrong to rule that the Department of Homeland Security's revised termination of the policy had no legal effect.