SESSIONS v. MORALES-SANTANA, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)


Issues: , , ,

Concurrence (Thomas)

Contents

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 15?1191

_________________

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. LUIS RAMON MORALES-SANTANA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ?APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 12, 2017]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the judgment in part.

The Court today holds that we are ?not equipped to? remedy the equal protection injury that respondent claims his father suffered under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952.?Ante, at 23. I agree with that holding. As the majority concludes, extending 8 U.?S.?C. ?1409(c)?s 1-year physical presence requirement to unwed citizen fathers (as respondent requests) is not, under this Court?s precedent, an appropriate remedy for any equal protection violation. See?ante, at 23. Indeed, I am skeptical that we even have the ?power to provide relief of the sort requested in this suit?namely, conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress.??Tuan Anh Nguyen?v.?INS, 533 U.?S. 53, 73 (2001) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring) (citing?Miller?v.?Albright, 523 U.?S. 420, 452 (1998) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring in judgment)).

The Court?s remedial holding resolves this case. Because respondent cannot obtain relief in any event, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the 1952 version of the INA was constitutional, whether respondent has third-party standing to raise an equal protection claim on behalf of his father, or whether other immigration laws (such as the current versions of ??1401(g) and 1409) are constitu-tional. I therefore concur only in the judgment reversing the Second Circuit.