Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 53

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–954 
_________________ 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 30, 2022]

 JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE 
ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join as to all but the first sen-
tence, dissenting. 

I agree with the Court’s analysis of the merits—but not 
with  its  decision  to  reach  them.    The  lower  courts  in  this 
case concluded that 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1), a provision of the
Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  sharply  limiting  federal
courts’  “jurisdiction  or  authority  to  enjoin  or  restrain  the
operation of ”  certain  immigration  laws, did  not  present  a 
jurisdictional bar.  Just two weeks ago, however, we repu-
diated their reasoning in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 
U. S. ___ (2022).  Because we are a court of review and not 
first view, I would vacate and remand for the lower courts 
to reconsider their assertion of jurisdiction in light of Ale-
man Gonzalez. 

* 

* 

* 
  Section 1252(f )(1) provides that “no court (other than the 
Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to en-
join or restrain the operation of ” specified immigration pro-
visions,  except  as  applied  to  “an  individual  alien  against 
whom proceedings under [those provisions] have been initi-
ated.”  Some  lower  courts  have  narrowly  interpreted  this
provision, holding that it does not bar relief that a plaintiff