Mullin v. Doe · ¶100

Respondents suggest that the plain language of the statute should not apply. Brief for Respondents in No. 25–1084, p. 15. According to this Court’s modern precedent, constitutional avoidance requires a clear statement to bar judicial review of constitutional claims. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 603 (1988). Barring all judicial consideration of a constitutional challenge to the Secretary’s TPS determination could, these precedents say, “rais[e] a serious constitutional question of the validity of the statute as so construed.” Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 762 (1975). Accordingly, the argument goes, courts should avoid interpreting the statute to have barred such review unless its intent to do so was clear, which respondents appear to doubt. Ibid.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.