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

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

5 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

to remedy harms like those the States demonstrated in this
suit, they would seek an injunction.  The injunction would
direct federal officials to detain aliens consistent with what 
the States say the immigration laws demand.  But even as-
suming an injunction like that would redress the States’ in-
juries, that form of relief is not available to them.

It  is  not  available  because  of  8  U. S. C.  §1252(f )(1).
There, Congress provided that “no court (other than the Su-
preme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin
or restrain the operation of ” certain immigration laws, in-
cluding the very laws  the States  seek to have enforced in
this case.  If there were any doubt about how to construe
this command, we resolved it in Garland v. Aleman Gonza-
lez,  596  U. S.  ___  (2022).    In  that  case,  we  held  that 
§1252(f )(1) “prohibits lower courts from . . . order[ing] fed-
eral officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to en-
force, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified stat-
utory provisions.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  Put simply, the
remedy  that  would  ordinarily  have  the  best  chance  of  re-
dressing the States’ harms is a forbidden one in this case.

The  district  court  thought  it  could  sidestep  §1252(f )(1).  

Instead of issuing an injunction, it purported to “vacate” the
Guidelines pursuant to §706(2) of the Administrative Pro-
cedure  Act  (APA),  5  U. S. C.  §706(2).    606  F. Supp.  3d,  at 
498–501,  and  n. 71.    Vacatur,  as  the  district  court  under-
stood it, is a distinct form of relief that operates directly on
agency action, depriving it of legal force or effect.  See id., 
at 499–500.  And vacatur, the district court reasoned, does 
not offend §1252(f )(1), because it does not entail an order 
directing any federal official to do anything.  See id., at 501, 
n. 71.  The States embrace this line of argument before us.
Brief for Respondents 43–47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 75–82. 

It’s  a  clever  workaround,  but  it  doesn’t  succeed.    Start 
with perhaps the simplest reason.  Assume for the moment 
the district court was right that §1252(f )(1) does not bar va-
catur  orders  and  that  §706(2)  authorizes  courts  to  issue