Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

This  would  all  matter  less  if  the  jurisdictional  question
were easy or unimportant—but it is neither.  The Court’s 
opinion papers over difficult issues, as I will discuss below,
and its jurisdictional holding is likely to affect many cases. 
See, e.g., Texas v. Biden, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2022 WL 
658579, *14 (ND Tex., Mar. 4, 2022) (§1252(f )(1) does not 
bar Texas’ claim that the Federal Government is wrongly 
refusing  to  detain  noncitizens  to  determine  if  they  have
COVID–19);  Defendants’  Opposition  to  Plaintiffs’  Motion
for  Temporary  Restraining  Order  8–9  in  Arizona  v.  CDC, 
Civ.  No.  6:22–cv–00885  (WD  La.,  Apr.  22,  2022)  (arguing
that §1252(f )(1) prohibits a district court from constraining
the  Federal  Government’s  removal  discretion  in  litigation 
challenging termination of Title 42 order).  We should not 
short circuit the ordinary process.

I  have  several  doubts  about  the  Court’s  analysis  of 
§1252(f )(1).  To begin with, the Court assumes that we face
an either/or choice between subject-matter jurisdiction and
remedial  authority,  with  the  former  being  only  about  a
court’s authority to decide merits questions and the latter
being  only  about  the  relief  a  court  can  grant.    Ante,  at  9. 
This dichotomy makes the Court’s job easier, because it can
use the obvious point that §1252(f )(1) strips lower courts of
remedial  authority  to  establish  that  §1252(f )(1)  does  not 
strip  them  of  subject-matter  jurisdiction.    But  why  is  it  a 
binary choice?  I would think that Congress is free to link a 
court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to its remedial authority. 
That is not so different from an amount-in-controversy re-
quirement, which conditions a district court’s ability to ad-
dress the merits on the relief that the plaintiff seeks.  See, 
e.g., 28 U. S. C. §1332 (district courts have subject-matter 
jurisdiction over diversity cases only when the amount in 
controversy  exceeds  $75,000).  And  the  redressability  re-
quirement of Article III itself establishes a tie between ju-
risdiction and remedies, because a court’s inability to order
effective relief deprives it of jurisdiction to decide the merits