Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 15

10 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

A second feature of the text of section 1252(f )(1) leaves 
no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction: the parenthetical
explicitly preserving this Court’s power to enter injunctive 
relief.  See §1252(f )(1) (“[N]o court (other than the Supreme
Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority . . .”).  If section 
1252(f )(1) deprived lower courts of subject matter jurisdic-
tion to adjudicate any non-individual claims under sections 
1221 through 1232, no such claims could ever arrive at this 
Court,  rendering  the  provision’s  specific  carveout  for  Su-
preme Court injunctive relief nugatory.  Indeed, that carve-
out seems directed at precisely the question before us here: 
whether  section  1252(f )(1)’s  “[l]imit  on  injunctive  relief ” 
has any consequence for the jurisdiction of this Court.  Con-
gress  took  pains  to  answer  that  question  in  the  negative. 
Interpreting section 1252(f )(1) to deprive this Court of ju-
risdiction under these circumstances would therefore fail to 
“give  effect,  if  possible,  to  every  clause  and  word  of  [the] 
statute.”  Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 404 (2000).2 

Statutory structure confirms our conclusion.  Elsewhere 
in  section  1252,  where  Congress  intended  to  deny  subject
matter jurisdiction over a particular class of claims, it did
so unambiguously.  Section 1252(a)(2), for instance, is enti-
tled  “Matters  not  subject  to  judicial  review”  and  provides 
that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” several cat-
egories  of  decisions,  such  as  “any  final  order  of  removal 
against an alien who is removable by reason of having com-
mitted  a  criminal  offense. . . .”  (Emphasis  added.)  Con-
gress could easily have added one more item to this list: any 

—————— 

2 JUSTICE BARRETT raises a host of additional questions regarding the 
“Supreme Court” parenthetical, post, at 4–5 (dissenting opinion), and she 
faults us for relying on this aspect of the provision without comprehen-
sively “explain[ing] how it would work,” post, at 5.  But we see no need 
to explore every aspect or consequence of the parenthetical in order to 
answer the narrow question of our jurisdiction over this case.  In declin-
ing  to  resolve  these  additional  complexities,  we  merely  heed  JUSTICE 
BARRETT’s admonition to “tread . . . carefully.”  Post, at 6.