Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 65

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

The Court points to what it sees as a “represent[ation]” by 
the Solicitor General that the Final Memorandum does not 
affect “continued detention of noncitizens already in federal 
custody.”  Ante, at 12, n. 5.  But as JUSTICE BARRETT notes, 
the Government argued that when it chooses not to remove
someone  under  the  Final  Memorandum’s  guidance,  its 
mandatory detention obligation ends—meaning it is assert-
ing discretion over continued detention.  Ante, at 3 (opinion 
concurring in judgment). 

In any event, arrest policy cannot be divided from deten-
tion policy in this case.  When a person is arrested, he or
she is detained for at least some period of time, and under 
the  detainer  system  involved  here,  “arrest”  often  simply
means transferring an immigrant from state custody to fed-
eral custody.  As best I can tell, the majority’s distinction 
between  arrest  and  detention  is  made  solely  to  avoid  the 
obvious  inference  that  our  decision  last  Term  in  Biden  v. 
Texas should have dismissed the case for lack of standing, 
without  analyzing  “the  Government’s  detention  obliga-
tions.”  597 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14).

In  sum,  with  the  exception  of  cases  in  the  first  (very
small) category (civil cases involving selective-prosecution
claims), the majority does not identify any category of cases
that it would definitely except from its general rule.  In ad-
dition, category two conflates the question of constitutional 
standing  with  the  question  whether  the  plaintiff  has  a 
cause of action; category three is hopelessly vague; category
four is incomprehensible; and category five actually encom-
passes the case before us. 

IV 
The Court declares that its decision upholds “[o]ur consti-
tutional system of separation of powers,” ante, at 9, but as 
I said at the outset, the decision actually damages that sys-
tem by improperly inflating the power of the Executive and 
cutting back the power of Congress and the authority of the