Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 54

2 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

frames  as  “requir[ing]”  (rather  than  preventing)  the  Gov-
ernment’s  enforcement  of  or  compliance  with  the  covered
immigration laws.  E.g., 20 F. 4th 928, 1004 (CA5 2021).  In 
this case, that was the only ground pressed by respondents
below  and  relied  on  by  the  lower  courts  to  hold  that 
§1252(f )(1)  did  not  “ba[r]  jurisdiction.”    Ibid.;  see  App.  to 
Pet.  for  Cert.  184a;  Brief  for  Appellees  in  No.  21–10806 
(CA5), pp. 40–41.  But we just rejected this interpretation 
in  Aleman  Gonzalez.  There,  we  held  that  §1252(f )(1)  de-
prives lower courts of “jurisdiction to entertain” requests for
“injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain
from  taking  actions  to  enforce,  implement,  or  otherwise 
carry out the specified statutory provisions” (subject to an 
exception, indisputably inapplicable to this case, for a suit
by an individual noncitizen in proceedings under those pro-
visions).  596 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 1, 5). 

In the normal course, we would vacate and remand this 
case  for  further  proceedings  in  light  of  Aleman  Gonzalez. 
Instead, the Court plows ahead to break new jurisdictional 
ground.  Acting  on  a  compressed  timeline,  it  embraces  a
theory of §1252(f )(1) that—so far as I can tell—no court of 
appeals has ever adopted: that §1252(f )(1) limits only the
lower  courts’  remedial  authority,  not  their  subject-matter
jurisdiction.  The  only court  of  appeals  to  have  addressed
this theory rejected it.  Miranda v. Garland, 34 F. 4th 338, 
354–356 (CA4 2022).  Still, the Court is confident enough to 
proceed  based  on  short,  barely  adversarial  supplemental
briefs.  (The United States’ original brief devoted only a con-
clusory  footnote  to  the  jurisdictional  question,  and  Texas 
and  Missouri  did  not  respond.)    And  these  supplemental 
briefs are particularly unhelpful because, having been sub-
mitted prior to our decision in Aleman Gonzalez, they could
not  address  that  decision’s  significance  for  this  case.  In 
fact,  they  devoted  a  considerable  portion  of  their  allotted
length to the issue that Aleman Gonzalez subsequently re-
solved.