Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

28 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

a novel construction of the constitution, and is entirely in-
admissible.”  Id., at 613.  This Court made the obvious con-
nection to the separation of powers: “vesting in the Presi-
dent  a  dispensing  power”  would  result  in  “clothing  the
President with a power entirely to control the legislation of
congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”  Ibid.; 
see also Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 
U. S. 414, 435 (1990) (White, J., concurring) (citing Kendall 
to explain that the “Executive Branch does not have the dis-
pensing power on its own” and “should not be granted such 
a power by judicial authorization”).

The original understanding of the scope of the Executive’s 
prosecutorial discretion was not briefed in this case, and I 
am reluctant to express a firm position on the question.  But 
it is indisputable that we have been provided with no his-
torical support for the position taken by the Solicitor Gen-
eral or the majority. 

* 

* 

* 
This sweeping Executive Power endorsed by today’s deci-
sion  may  at  first  be  warmly  received  by  champions  of  a 
strong  Presidential  power,  but  if  Presidents  can  expand 
their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength
with  Congress,  presumably  Congress  can  cut  executive 
power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable 
weapons at its disposal.  That is not what the Constitution 
envisions. 

I end with one final observation.  The majority suggests
that its decision rebuffs an effort to convince us to “ ‘usurp’ ” 
the  authority  of  the  other  branches,  but  that  is  not  true. 
Ante, at 3.  We exercise the power conferred by Article III of
the Constitution, and we must be vigilant not to exceed the 
limits of our constitutional role.  But when we have juris-
diction, we have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exer-
cise  that  authority.  Colorado  River  Water  Conservation 
Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817 (1976).  Because