Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

issue a new memorandum terminating MPP, and the Gov-
ernment  asked  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  hold  its  appeal  in
abeyance  pending  this  promised  administrative  action. 
App. 51–52.  The Court of Appeals denied that motion, id., 
at  54,  and  then,  two  business  days  before  oral  argument,
DHS issued two memoranda declaring that DHS had made
a new decision terminating MPP.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 
257a–345a.  At the same time, the Government asked the 
Court of Appeals to hold that the case before it was moot, to
vacate the District Court’s judgment and injunction, and to
remand the case for further proceedings.  20 F. 4th 928, 946 
(CA5  2021).    The  Fifth  Circuit  refused  and  held  that  the 
October 29 Memoranda did not moot the appeal or have any 
other legal effect on the appellate proceedings.  Id., at 956– 
966, 998–1000.  The Fifth Circuit then affirmed the District 
Court on the merits. 

II 
I agree with the majority that the injunction entered by
the District Court in this case exceeded its “jurisdiction or
authority  to  enjoin  or  restrain  the  operation  of ”  the  rele-
vant statutes.  §1252(f )(1).  That conclusion follows from a 
straightforward analysis of the text of §1252(f )(1), as recog-
nized by the Court’s decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonza-
lez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).  But that is where the majority and 
I part ways.

I agree with JUSTICE BARRETT that the majority should
not go any further and should not resolve other questions
about  §1252(f )(1)  without  adequate  briefing  or  argument.
The  Government  admits  that  “this  Court  could  in  theory
vacate  the  judgment  below  without  reaching  the  merits,”
Supp. Brief for Petitioners 23, but the majority chooses to
decide  far  more  than  is  necessary  or  advisable  under  the
circumstances. 

As  JUSTICE  BARRETT  explains,  the  interpretation  of 
§1252(f )(1)  presents  difficult  questions  that  the  parties