Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶78

Even if some declaratory relief were compatible with §1252(f )(1), the relief entered here likely is not. The Government was subject to a declaration that, under §706(1) of the APA, it was illegal for it to withhold inspection from the class members. See supra, at 3–4. The court’s judgment was therefore a declaration that the Government’s metering policy resulted in “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” A §706(1) order, by its plain terms, “compel[s]” the agency to carry out the relevant duties under §1225. So, like the injunction held unlawful in Aleman Gonzalez, this judgment under §706(1) appears to “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required by” covered provisions of the INA, contrary to §1252(f )(1). 596 U. S., at 551.

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