Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 48

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

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

powers of Congress over the matter.”  Youngstown Sheet & 
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., 
concurring).    And  it  is  Congress,  not  the  Judiciary,  that
gave the Executive only three options for dealing with in-
admissible aliens encountered at the border. 

Finally, the majority emphasizes the fact that prior ad-
ministrations have also failed to detain inadmissible aliens, 
but that practice does not change what the law demands.
The majority cites no authority for the doctrine that the Ex-
ecutive  can  acquire  authority  forbidden  by  law  through  a 
process akin to adverse possession. 

B 
Not only does the majority fail to heed the clear language
of the INA, but it gratuitously faults the Court of Appeals
for what appears to be a fairly modest and correct conclu-
sion: that the October 29 Memoranda purporting to re-ter-
minate MPP did not ultimately affect the merits of the ap-
peal  of  the  judgment  that  was  before  that  court.  The 
Government issued its October 29 Memoranda after brief-
ing  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  been  completed  and  only
days before the appeal was set to be argued.  Based on those 
memoranda, the Government asked the Court of Appeals to
vacate the judgment below, but it did not provide a full ad-
ministrative  record  or  give  the  District  Court  an  oppor-
tunity to review the purported new decision in the first in-
stance  by  filing  a  Rule  60(b)  motion.6    The  majority  now 
says that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to treat the
October 29 Memoranda as a new, final agency action, but 
the majority does not say what applying that label would 
have required the Fifth Circuit to do differently. 

As I see it, the Government’s litigation tactic—filing the
October 29 Memoranda with a suggestion of mootness but 
without seeking to dismiss its appeal—could have triggered 
—————— 

6 See generally 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice

and Procedure §2961 (3d ed. 2013).