Courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to a family member's removal but cannot grant relief

In Hamdi v. Napolitano, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0288p-06.pdf (published), a child sought to stop the DHS from removing his mother. 
The case presented sympathetic facts because Hamdi is severely disabled and dependent on his mother's care.

Although the end result was not favorable, the decisions includes discussions about several important jurisdictional issues.  First, 8 USC 1252(g), the "zipper clause" did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction over a child's independent complaint relating to the removal of his mother.  Thus, if a family member seeks to stop a loved one's removal, the family member should assert his or her own distinct constitutional right and separate injuries.

However, the child's constitutional and international law claims do not provide subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act.  In a footnote, the Court also found that the Declaratory Judgments Act likewise does not provide subject matter jurisdiction.  The APA does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to the parent's removal because the APA is supplanted by the INA.

The APA's general waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to non-monetary claims allowed the child's claim to proceed under 8 USC 1331's general federal-question subject matter jurisdiction.  The constitutional nature of the child's alleged injury (the complaint raised the 5th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments) were sufficient to create subject matter jurisdiction and could not be dismissed out of hand.

Although the Court found subject matter jurisdiction, the Court found dismissal proper for failure to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted.  8 USC 1252(b)(9), although it does not preclude subject matter jurisdiction, does preclude the granting of the relief requested, which was judicial review of the mother's removal order. This statute establishes the procedure for challenging a removal order.  While the Court can determine whether the child's constitutional rights will be violated from the separation from his mother, this is distinct from a judicial determination of questions arising from the mother's removal.  In the end, 1252(b)(9) operates to deprive all federal courts of the authority to review the mother's removal to determine whether the constitutional injuries to the child renders the removal invalid.

In the final footnote, note 16, the Court left open the possibility that certain types of unnamed relief might survive section 1252's jurisdictional bars.