Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

It is easy to see why.  We do not normally suppose that 
Congress blithely includes words in its laws that perform
no work.  See, e.g., Liu v. SEC, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip 
op., at 16) (noting the “ ‘cardinal principle of interpretation
that courts must give effect, if possible, to every clause and 
word of a statute’ ”).  Yet that is exactly what the majority’s
interpretation requires of us.  If subparagraph (B)(i) oper-
ated as the majority imagines, Congress would have had no
need to deny courts jurisdiction over “any judgment regard-
ing the granting of relief under section 1255.”  Instead, Con-
gress  could  have  simply  omitted  the  italicized  words  and 
denied jurisdiction over “any judgment under section 1255.” 
Plainly, all those additional words must do something.  And 
the work they perform is clear—the phrase directs us to the 
Attorney  General’s  second-step  discretionary  judgment  to 
grant relief.  That alone is a judgment “regarding the grant-
ing of relief.”  And under the statute’s terms, that judgment 
alone is shielded from judicial review. 

The majority’s attempt to resolve its surplusage problem
only underscores the gravity of its error.  First, the majority
tells us that, as used in subparagraph (B)(i), the words “any 
judgment” mean “any authoritative decision.”  Ante, at 7, 8. 
Then the majority tells us that the phrase “regarding the 
granting  of  relief ”  expands  the  universe  of  covered  judg-
ments  further,  because  the  word  “regarding”  “ ‘generally 
has a broadening effect.’ ”  Ante, at 8–9.  But how could that 
be?  Under the majority’s reading of the word “judgment,” 
the statute already precludes judicial review of any author-
itative decision “under section 1255.”  There is no further 
corner of the universe left to explore.  Once more, the words 
regarding the granting of relief are left without work to per-
form.  Rather than sort out its surplusage problem, the ma-
jority’s answer only highlights its bind. 

What is more, the majority’s argument rests on a faulty 
premise.  The  majority  insists  that  the  word  “regarding”