Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

2 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may
return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] pro-
ceeding.”  §1225(b)(2)(C).  Second,  DHS  may  release  indi-
vidual aliens on “parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis
for  urgent  humanitarian  reasons  or  a  significant  public 
benefit.”  §1182(d)(5)(A). 

Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter 
illegally  from  Mexico,  DHS  does  not  have  the  capacity  to 
detain  all  inadmissible  aliens  encountered  at  the  border, 
and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible.  But 
rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alter-
native  to  return  inadmissible  aliens  to  Mexico  while  they 
await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that 
it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply re-
lease  into  this  country  untold  numbers  of  aliens  who  are
very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal 
hearings.  This practice violates the clear terms of the law, 
but the Court looks the other way. 

In  doing  so,  the  majority  commits  three  main  errors. 
First, it unnecessarily resolves difficult jurisdictional ques-
tions  on  which—due  to  the  Government’s  litigation  tac-
tics—we have received only hurried briefing and no argu-
ment.  Second,  when  the  majority  reaches  the  merits,  it 
contrives  a  way  to  overlook  the  clear  statutory  violations 
that result from DHS’s decision to terminate the use of its 
contiguous-territory return authority.  Finally, the majority
unjustifiably  faults  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  rejecting  the
Government’s  last-minute  attempt  to  derail  the  ordinary
appellate process.  I cannot go along with any of this, and I 
therefore respectfully dissent. 

I 

In 2018, a surge of foreign migrants attempted to enter 
the United States unlawfully at the United States-Mexico 
border, creating a “ ‘humanitarian and border security cri-
sis.’ ”  554  F. Supp. 3d 818, 831 (ND Tex. 2021).  Because