Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

12 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

B 
While  the  majority  does  not  contest  redressability,
JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s concurrence  does,  citing  two  reasons.
But the first is contrary to precedent, and the second should 
not be addressed in this case. 

The first asserted reason is based on the inability of the 
lower courts to issue a broad injunction forbidding enforce-
ment of the Final Memorandum.  See §1252(f )(1).5  In this 
case, the District Court did not issue injunctive relief.  In-
stead,  it  vacated  the  Final  Memorandum,  and  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH argues that this relief did not redress Texas’s in-
juries because it does not “require federal officials to change
how they exercise [their prosecutorial] discretion in the [Fi-
nal  Memorandum’s]  Guidelines’  absence.”    Ante,  at  6. 
There are two serious problems with this argument. 
  First,  §1252(f )(1)  bars  injunctive  relief  by  courts  “other 
than the Supreme Court.”  (Emphasis added.)  As a result, 
redress in the form of an injunction can be awarded by this 
Court.  According to the Court’s decision last Term in Biden 
v. Texas, our authority to grant such relief “le[ft] no doubt”
as to our jurisdiction even if §1252(f )(1) precluded the lower 
courts  from  setting  aside  an  administrative  action  under
the APA.  597 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10).  We have not 
been  asked  to  revisit  this  holding,  see  id.,  at  ___–___ 
(BARRETT, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 3–4), and I would not
do so here. 

Second, even if Biden v. Texas could be distinguished and 

—————— 

5 Section 1252(f )(1) reads in full: 
“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 jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the oper-
ation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an indi-
vidual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initi-
ated.”