Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 58.0

6 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

of nonjurisdictional rules.  See, e.g., Hamer v. Neighborhood 
Housing  Servs.  of  Chicago,  583  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2017) 
(slip  op.,  at  2–3). 
It  reserves  the  question  whether
§1252(f )(1) bars declaratory relief, an issue on which there 
are  conflicting  views.  Compare  Alli  v.  Decker,  650  F. 3d 
1007, 1013 (CA3 2011) (it does not bar declaratory relief ), 
with  id.,  at  1019–1021  (Fuentes,  J.,  dissenting)  (it  does), 
with  Hamama  v.  Adducci,  912  F. 3d  869,  880,  n. 8  (CA6 
2018)  (it  depends).  And  it  avoids  a  position  on  whether
§1252(f )(1) prevents a lower court from vacating or setting 
aside an agency action under the Administrative Procedure
Act.  See 5 U. S. C. §706(2).  Not that I fault the Court for 
holding back.  Quite the contrary: The questions surround-
ing  §1252(f )(1)  are  complex  and  deserve  more  attention 
than we can give them in this posture. 

As a final touch, the Court asserts that our precedent has
already charted this course.  Ante, at 11–12.  But the Court 
cannot muster much on that front.  It cites a passing state-
ment rejecting an inapposite argument that §1252(f )(1) is 
a  jurisdictional  grant,  see  Reno  v.  American-Arab  Anti-
Discrimination  Comm.,  525  U. S.  471,  481  (1999),  a  brief 
discussion  from  a  plurality  opinion  in  a  case  where  the
§1252(f )(1) issue had not been briefed or argued by the par-
ties in this Court, see Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U. S. ___, ___– 
___ (2019) (slip op., at 8–9), and a dissent, see Jennings v. 
Rodriguez, 583 U. S ___, ___ (2018) (opinion of BREYER, J.)
(slip  op.,  at  31).  None  provides  a  clear  roadmap  for  this 
case. 

* 

* 

* 
Given all this, I would tread more carefully.  We should 
let the lower courts be the first to address the substantial 
antecedent  questions  that  §1252(f )(1)  presents  in  light  of 
our hot-off-the-presses decision in Aleman Gonzalez.  I re-
spectfully dissent.