Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

3 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

To be clear, when there is insufficient detention capacity
and the President chooses the parole option because he de-
termines that returning noncitizens to Mexico is not feasi-
ble for foreign-policy reasons, a court applying State Farm 
must be deferential to the President’s Article II foreign-pol-
icy judgment.  Cf., e.g., Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___, ___– 
___ (2018) (slip op., at 10–15).  Nothing in the relevant im-
migration  statutes  at  issue  here  suggests  that  Congress
wanted  the  Federal  Judiciary  to  improperly  second-guess 
the President’s Article II judgment with respect to Ameri-
can  foreign  policy  and  foreign  relations.    See  Youngstown 
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635−637 (1952)
(Jackson, J., concurring); see also Dames & Moore v. Regan, 
453 U. S. 654, 678–679, 686–688 (1981). 

One final note:  The larger policy story behind this case
is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to pro-
vide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who 
seek to enter the United States pending their immigration
proceedings.  But this Court has authority to address only 
the legal issues before us.  We do not have authority to end
the legislative stalemate or to resolve the underlying policy 
problems.

With those additional comments, I join the Court’s opin-

ion in full.