Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

to put the Termination Decision back on the chopping block 
and  rethink  things,”  and  for  ultimately  “just  further  de-
fend[ing] what it had previously decided.”  Id., at 955.  And 
the Court of Appeals drew a dichotomy between taking new 
agency action and appealing an adverse decision, asserting
that “DHS chose not to take a new agency action” but “in-
stead chose to notice an appeal and defend its Termination 
Decision in our court.”  Id., at 941. 

We granted certiorari, 595 U. S. ___ (2022), and expedited 

consideration of this appeal at the Government’s request. 

II 
We  begin  with  jurisdiction.    The  Government  contends 
that the injunction the District Court entered was barred 
by 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1).  That provision reads as follows: 

“Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the
identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no 
court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have juris-
diction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation 
of [8 U. S. C. §§1221–1232], other than with respect to 
the application of such provisions to an individual alien 
against  whom  proceedings  under  [those  provisions]
have been initiated.” 

As  we  recently  held  in  Garland  v.  Aleman  Gonzalez,  596 
U. S.  ___  (2022),  section  1252(f )(1)  “generally  prohibits 
lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal of-
ficials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, 
implement,  or  otherwise  carry  out  the  specified  statutory 
provisions.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  The District Court’s 
injunction in this case violated that provision.  But that fact 
simply  presents  us  with  the  following  question:  whether 
section  1252(f )(1)  deprives  this  Court  of  jurisdiction  to
reach  the  merits  of  an  appeal,  where  the  lower  court  en-
tered a form of relief barred by that provision.  See Steel Co. 
v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 95 (1998)