Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 17

12 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

Court regarding section 1252(f )(1) are in accord.  See Reno 
v.  American-Arab  Anti-Discrimination  Comm.,  525  U. S. 
471, 481 (1999) (“By its plain terms, and even by its title,
[section 1252(f )(1)] is nothing more or less than a limit on 
injunctive relief.”).

In short, we see no basis for the conclusion that section 
1252(f )(1)  concerns  subject  matter  jurisdiction.    It  is  true 
that section 1252(f )(1) uses the phrase “jurisdiction or au-
thority,”  rather  than  simply  the  word  “authority.”    But 
“[j]urisdiction . . . is a word of many, too many meanings.” 
Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 90.  And the question whether a court 
has  jurisdiction  to  grant  a  particular  remedy  is  different 
from the question whether it has subject matter jurisdiction 
over a particular class of claims.  See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. 
Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 163–164 (2010) (concluding that 
“[t]he word ‘jurisdiction’ . . . says nothing about whether a
federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate
claims”).  Section  1252(f )(1)  no  doubt  deprives  the  lower 
courts of “jurisdiction” to grant classwide injunctive relief.
See Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).  But 
that  limitation  poses  no  obstacle  to  jurisdiction  in  this
Court.4 

III 
We  now  turn  to  the  merits.    Section  1225(b)(2)(C)  pro-
vides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land 
. . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, 

—————— 
as injunctive relief.  Post, at 5, n. (dissenting opinion).  That misses the 
point.  The Preap District Court granted only injunctive relief, present-
ing the exact circumstances we confront here, yet this Court exercised 
jurisdiction over that lawsuit and resolved it on the merits. 

4 At  our  request,  the  parties  briefed  several  additional  questions  re-
garding the operation of section 1252(f )(1), namely, whether its limita-
tion  on  “jurisdiction  or  authority”  is  subject  to  forfeiture  and  whether 
that  limitation  extends  to  other  specific  remedies,  such  as  declaratory
relief and relief under section 706 of the APA.  We express no view on 
those questions.