Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 14

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

whether to consider ameliorative measures that could en-
sure the child’s safe return.  The Second Circuit’s rule, “in 
practice, rewrite[s] the treaty,” Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 
572 U. S. 1, 17 (2014), by imposing an atextual, categorical
requirement that courts consider all possible ameliorative 
measures  in  exercising  this  discretion,  regardless  of
whether such consideration is consistent with the Conven-
tion’s objectives (and, seemingly, regardless of whether the 
parties offered them for the court’s consideration in the first
place).  See Blondin I, 189 F. 3d, at 249 (requiring district 
court not to “limit itself to the single alternative placement 
initially suggested by [the appellant]” but instead affirma-
tively  to  “develop  a  thorough  record  to  facilitate  its  deci-
sion,” including by “mak[ing] any appropriate or necessary 
inquiries” of the government of the country of habitual res-
idence and invoking the aid of the Department of State). 

B 

While consideration of ameliorative measures is within a 
district court’s discretion, “[d]iscretion is not whim.”  Mar-
tin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005).  A 
“motion to a court’s discretion is a motion, not to its inclina-
tion, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided 
by sound legal principles.”  Ibid. (internal quotation marks
and alteration omitted).  As a threshold matter, a district 
court  exercising  its  discretion  is  still  responsible  for  ad-
dressing and responding to nonfrivolous arguments timely
raised by the parties before it.  While a district court has no 
obligation  under  the  Convention  to  consider  ameliorative 
measures that have not been raised by the parties, it ordi-
narily should address ameliorative measures raised by the
parties or obviously suggested by the circumstances of the 
case, such as in the example of the localized epidemic.  See 
supra, at 10. 

In  addition,  the  court’s  consideration  of  ameliorative 
measures must be guided by the legal principles and other