Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

5 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

Court does  not explain how it  would work.  Does it mean 
that  the  restriction  on  remedial  authority  is  subject  to
waiver  or  forfeiture,  so  that  a  lower  court  can  sometimes 
properly  enter  non-individual  injunctive  relief  that  this 
Court  can  then  review?    That  a  district  court  has  the  au-
thority to enter some kinds of non-individual relief (for ex-
ample,  a  classwide  declaratory  judgment)  and  that  this
Court can enter different relief (for example, a classwide in-
junction) on review of that judgment?  Or that this Court 
can enter an injunction on appeal if the district court could 
have entered at least one form of relief, even if it actually
entered  only  relief  that  exceeded  its  authority?*  Or  per-
haps the parenthetical serves the very different purpose of
clarifying that §1252(f )(1) does not disturb any pre-existing 
authority this Court has under the All Writs Act or other 
sources.  These are difficult questions, yet the Court does
not address any of them.

Indeed, the Court explicitly chooses not to opine on some 
of the issues that might help explain the parenthetical’s un-
usual reservation.  See ante, at 12, n. 4.  For example, the 
Court declines to decide whether the bar in §1252(f )(1) is
subject to forfeiture, even though that is a defining feature 

—————— 

*For instance, in this case, the States sought declaratory relief, injunc-
tive relief, and vacatur of the Government’s termination of the Migrant 
Protection  Protocols,  but  the  District  Court  expressly  entered  only  the 
latter  two.    If  the  District  Court  could  have  issued  a  declaratory  judg-
ment, perhaps this Court could exercise appellate jurisdiction even if the
District Court lacked authority to issue an injunction or vacatur.  The 
Court  suggests  that  this  happened  in  Nielsen  v.  Preap,  586  U. S.  ___ 
(2019), in which, it says, the District Court also awarded only injunctive
relief.  Ante, at 11.  But the issue is more complicated than the Court lets 
on.  Preap involved consolidated cases.  In the first, the plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, but the District Court entered only the 
latter.  See Preap v. Johnson, 303 F. R. D. 566, 587 (ND Cal. 2014).  In 
the second, however, the District Court entered “only [a] declaratory rul-
ing,” with no accompanying injunction.  Khoury v. Asher, 3 F. Supp. 3d 
877, 892 (WD Wash. 2014).  So unlike today’s case, Preap did not involve 
only a hypothetical declaratory judgment.