Page:United States v. Texas (2023).pdf/22

Rh to remedy harms like those the States demonstrated in this suit, they would seek an injunction. The injunction would direct federal officials to detain aliens consistent with what the States say the immigration laws demand. But even assuming an injunction like that would redress the States’ injuries, that form of relief is not available to them.

It is not available because of 8 U. S. C. §1252(f)(1). There, Congress provided that “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of” certain immigration laws, including the very laws the States seek to have enforced in this case. If there were any doubt about how to construe this command, we resolved it in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022). In that case, we held that §1252(f)(1) “prohibits lower courts from … order[ing] federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5). Put simply, the remedy that would ordinarily have the best chance of redressing the States’ harms is a forbidden one in this case.

The district court thought it could sidestep §1252(f)(1). Instead of issuing an injunction, it purported to “vacate” the Guidelines pursuant to §706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2). 606 F. Supp. 3d, at 498–501, and n. 71. Vacatur, as the district court understood it, is a distinct form of relief that operates directly on agency action, depriving it of legal force or effect. See id., at 499–500. And vacatur, the district court reasoned, does not offend §1252(f)(1), because it does not entail an order directing any federal official to do anything. See id., at 501, n. 71. The States embrace this line of argument before us. Brief for Respondents 43–47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 75–82.

It’s a clever workaround, but it doesn’t succeed. Start with perhaps the simplest reason. Assume for the moment the district court was right that §1252(f)(1) does not bar vacatur orders and that §706(2) authorizes courts to issue