The unfortunate consequences of Doe's conviction compel us to offer a few additional observations.  First, our holding that the District Court had no authority to expunge the records of a valid conviction in this case says nothing about Congress's ability to provide for jurisdiction in similar cases in the future.  As described above, Congress has done so in other contexts. It might consider doing so again for certain offenders who, like Doe, want and deserve to have their criminal convictions expunge after a period of successful rehabilitation. Second, only a few months ago (while this appeal was pending), the Attorney General of the United States recognized and aptly described the unfortunate lifelong toll that these convictions often impose on low‐level criminal offenders:

Too often, Americans who have paid their debt to society leave prison only to find that they continue to be punished for past mistakes. They might discover that they are ineligible for student loans, putting an education out of reach. They might struggle to get a driver's license, making employment difficult to find and sustain. Landlords might deny them housing because of their criminal records - an unfortunately common practice. They might even find that they are not allowed to vote based on misguided state laws that prevent returning citizens from taking part in civic life. . .

Second, I do not join the majority's discussion of the merits of affording courts jurisdiction to expunge criminal convictions, which begins on page 17.  I am sympathetic to the concerns the majority raises in this dicta, but I note that there are other significant considerations - including the value of governmental and judicial transparency - that must also be assessed in the context of this policy debate.  Having concluded that we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of this case, I would not suggest to Congress how it might go about assessing and weighing these equities.