Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

“in a legal context generally has a broadening effect, ensur-
ing that the scope of a provision covers not only its subject 
but also matters relating to that subject.”  Lamar, Archer & 
Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., 
at 7); see also Webster’s Third New International Diction-
ary,  at  1911  (defining  “regarding”  as  “with  respect  to”  or
“concerning”).  Thus, §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) encompasses not just
“the  granting  of  relief ”  but  also  any  judgment  relating  to 
the  granting  of  relief.    That  plainly  includes  factual  find-
ings.

Section  1252(a)(2)(D),  which  preserves  review  of  consti-
tutional claims and questions of law, reinforces that conclu-
sion.  Congress added this subparagraph after we suggested 
in St. Cyr that barring review of all legal questions in re-
moval cases could raise a constitutional concern.  See 533 
U. S., at 300, 314.  The amendment is precise.  While Con-
gress could have responded to St. Cyr by lifting §1252’s pro-
hibitions  on  judicial  review  altogether,  it  instead  excised 
only the legal and constitutional questions that implicated 
our concern.  See §1252(a)(2)(D) (“Nothing in subparagraph
(B) or (C)” or other similar provisions “shall be construed as 
precluding  review  of  constitutional  claims  or  questions  of 
law”);  §§1252(a)(2)(B),  (C)  (continuing  to  prohibit  review 
“except as provided in subparagraph (D)”).  And if Congress 
made such questions an exception, it must have left some-
thing  within  the  rule.  The  major  remaining  category  is 
questions of fact.

No surprise, then, that we have already relied on subpar-
agraph (D) to all but settle that judicial review of factfind-
ing is unavailable.  In Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. 
___  (2020), we  had  to decide  whether  subparagraph  (C)—
which bars review of “any final order of removal against an
alien who is removable by reason of having committed” cer-
tain  criminal  offenses—prohibits  review  of  how  a  legal 
standard applies to undisputed facts.  Our answer turned 
on whether such an application counts as a question of law