Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 49

16 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

one of four responses from the Court of Appeals.  The Court 
of Appeals could have (1) dismissed the appeal as moot and 
vacated  the  District  Court’s  judgment  and  injunction;  (2)
held  the  appeal  in  abeyance  for  an  unspecified  time;  (3)
evaluated the October 29 Memoranda as final agency action
in the first instance under the APA; or (4) concluded that
the October 29 Memoranda did not affect the appeal, which
challenged  the  June  termination.   The  Court  of  Appeals
picked the fourth option, and taking each option in turn, I 
will explain why that was the response best suited to avoid
derailing the ordinary appellate process.

First,  the  October  29  Memoranda  did  not  moot  the  ap-
peal.  A case becomes moot only if it is impossible for the 
court to “ ‘grant any effectual relief.’ ”  Chafin v. Chafin, 568 
U. S. 165, 172 (2013).  Under this high standard, the Fifth 
Circuit was correct that the case was not moot.  Although
the Government claimed that the appeal was moot, it asked 
the Court of Appeals for relief, namely, vacatur of District
Court’s injunction.  It was compelled to take that position 
because  the  October  29  Memoranda,  by  their  own  terms,
did not take effect as long as  that injunction remained in
force.  See 20 F. 4th, at 957.  And without an appellate de-
cision holding that the INA allows the Government to re-
lease aliens who could be returned to Mexico, the issuance 
of a new administrative order terminating MPP could not
provide a ground for vacating the injunction.  It is telling 
that the Government’s briefing in this Court never suggests
that the case was moot at the time of the Fifth Circuit’s de-
cision or that the case is now moot. 

Second, the Court of Appeals did not err by declining to 
hold  the  appeal  in  abeyance.    The  Government  originally
asked the Court of Appeals to hold the appeal while it com-
pleted  the  process  of  issuing  a  new  termination  decision, 
but by the time of oral argument in that court, the Govern-
ment  claimed  that  such  a  decision  had  been  issued.  And 
the Government did not file a motion in the District Court