Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 47

14 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

not say expressly that it was meant to “operate as a man-
datory cure of any non-compliance with the Government’s 
detention obligations.”  Ante, at 14.  But what logic compels
need not be stated expressly. 

The majority also relies on the fact that the contiguous-
return provision was enacted 90 years after the provision
requiring detention and the fact that the circumstances un-
der which the contiguous-return provision was adopted sug-
gest  that  it  was  intended  to  serve  only  a  “humble  role.” 
Ante, at 16.  Those circumstances cannot change what the
relevant provisions say or the way in which they logically 
work  together.    See  Exxon  Mobil Corp.  v.  Allapattah  Ser-
vices, Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 568 (2005) (“Extrinsic materials
have  a  role  in  statutory  interpretation  only  to  the  extent
that they shed a reliable light on the enacting Legislature’s
understanding of otherwise ambiguous terms”).  The Court 
should  not  use  extra-textual  evidence  to  demote  one  of 
DHS’s three lawful alternatives to the status of a historical 
footnote. 

The majority and the concurrence fault the lower courts
for intruding upon the foreign policy authority conferred on 
the President by Article II of the Constitution.  Ante, at 16– 
17 (majority opinion); ante, at 3 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.).
But enforcement of immigration laws often has foreign re-
lations  implications,  and  the  Constitution  gives  Congress 
broad authority to set immigration policy.  See Art. I, §8, cl.
4.  This means, we have said, that “[p]olicies pertaining to 
the entry of aliens” are “entrusted exclusively to Congress.”  
Galvan  v.  Press,  347  U. S.  522,  531  (1954)  (emphasis 
added).  The President has vital power in the field of foreign 
affairs, so does Congress, and the President does not have
the authority to override immigration laws enacted by Con-
gress.  Indeed,  “[w]hen  the  President  takes  measures  in-
compatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, 
his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon 
his  own  constitutional  powers  minus  any  constitutional