Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 39

6 

BIDEN v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

should  have  addressed  in  the  briefs  they  filed  before  oral 
argument.  In its opening brief, the Government’s only dis-
cussion  of  this  issue  appeared  in  a  footnote  that  reads  as 
follows in its entirety: 

“In  addition,  the  lower  courts  lacked  jurisdiction  to 
grant  injunctive  relief  under  8  U. S. C.  [§]1252(f )(1).
This  Court  is  considering  the  scope  of  Section 
1252(f )(1) in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, No. 20–322 
(argued Jan. 11, 2022).”  Brief for Petitioners 18, n. 3. 

That footnote’s reference to the Government’s brief in Gon-
zalez raised an obvious question.  Section 1252(f )(1) refers
to orders that “enjoin or restrain the operation of ” specified 
statutory provisions, and in Gonzalez, the Government sug-
gested that this provision should not be interpreted to apply
only  to  injunctions.    Brief  for  Petitioners  17–19,  32,  n.  3, 
and Tr. of Oral Arg. 15–16, in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 
O. T. 2021, No. 20–322.  Instead, the Government refused 
to rule out the possibility that the provision might also ap-
ply  to  class-wide  declaratory  relief,  and  it  analogized
§1252(f )(1) to the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. §1341, and 
cited our decision in California v. Grace Brethren Church, 
457 U. S. 393 (1982), which interpreted that provision in a 
“ ‘practical sense.’ ”  Id., at 408. 

In the present case, the Government challenged the order 
of  the  District  Court  “set[ting]  aside”  under  the  APA,  5
U. S. C.  §706(2),  the  June  termination  of  MPP,  and  since 
this order had a practical effect that was in some respects
similar  to  an  injunction,  the  Government’s  argument  in 
Gonzalez  raised  the  question  whether  the  Government 
thought that §1252(f )(1) also barred the District Court from
reviewing the termination of the MPP under the APA.  That 
is an important question the resolution of which could have
effects extending far beyond this particular dispute, and at 
oral  argument  the  Solicitor  General  took  the far-reaching
position that §1252(f )(1) does indeed bar APA review.  See