Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

consistent with the ordinary meaning of “case-by-case” re-
view, and as the Court of Appeals pointed out, the circum-
stances  under  which  §1182(d)(5)(B))  was  adopted  bolster 
that conclusion.  See 20 F. 4th, at 947 (After “the executive 
branch  on  multiple  occasions  purported  to  use  the  parole 
power  to  bring  in  large  groups  of  immigrants,”  “Congress 
twice amended 8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5) to limit the scope of
the parole power and prevent the executive branch from us-
ing  it  as  a  programmatic  policy  tool”  (citing  T.  Aleinikoff 
et al., Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy 300
(9th ed. 2021))).

The majority claims that the Government’s use of its pa-
role authority under §1182(d)(5)(A) is not before us, ante, at 
18,  but  the  Government  cites  that  authority  as  a  reason
why it does not need to use its contiguous-territory return
authority.  Brief  for  Petitioners  6,  33–36.  Moreover,  the 
District Court’s judgment relied on factual findings regard-
ing DHS’s abuse of its parole authority on the record that 
the Government provided.  554 F. Supp. 3d, at 837. 

For  these  reasons,  §1182(d)(5)(A)  cannot  justify  the  re-
lease of tens of thousands of apparently inadmissible aliens
each month, and that leaves the Government with only one
lawful  option:  continue  to  return  inadmissible  aliens  to 
Mexico.  See §1225(b)(2)(C). 

2 
The  majority’s  chief  defense  of  the  Government’s  rejec-
tion of MPP is based on a blinkered method of statutory in-
terpretation  that  we  have  firmly  rejected.    The  majority
largely  ignores  the  mandatory  detention  requirement  im-
posed by §1225(b)(2)(A) and, instead, reads the contiguous-
return  provision,  §1225(b)(2)(C),  in  isolation.   That  provi-
sion  says  that  the  Secretary  “may”  return  aliens  to  the 
country  from  which  they  entered,  not  that  the  Secretary
must do so, and for the majority, that is enough to show that
use of that authority is not required.