Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–954 
_________________ 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 30, 2022]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
I agree with the Court that the District Court had juris-
diction over Texas’s suit.  I also agree with the Court that
the Government prevails on the merits of the two specific 
legal  questions  presented  here.  I  note,  moreover,  that  six 
Members of the Court agree with the Court’s merits conclu-
sion.  See post, at 1 (BARRETT, J., dissenting).

I write separately to briefly elaborate on my understand-
ing of the relevant statutory provisions and to point out one
legal issue that remains open for resolution on remand. 

When the Department of Homeland Security lacks suffi-
cient capacity to detain noncitizens at the southern border
pending their immigration proceedings (often asylum pro-
ceedings),  the  immigration  laws  afford  DHS  two  primary 
options.

Option one:  DHS may grant noncitizens parole into the 
United States if parole provides a “significant public bene-
fit.”  8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A).  Parole entails releasing in-
dividuals  on  a  case-by-case  basis  into  the  United  States 
subject to “reasonable assurances” that they “will appear at 
all  hearings.”    8  CFR  §212.5(d)  (2020);  see  8  U. S. C. 
§1182(d)(5)(A).  Notably, every Administration beginning in
the late 1990s has relied heavily on the parole option, in-
cluding  the  administrations  of  Presidents  Clinton,  Bush,
Obama, Trump, and Biden.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, 49–54.