United States v. Texas
599 U.S. 670
SCOTUS
2023

Background

  • In 2021 DHS issued "Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law" that prioritized arrest/removal of certain noncitizens (e.g., national-security threats, recent unlawful entrants) and de-prioritized others.
  • Texas and Louisiana sued, alleging DHS violated statutory arrest/detention mandates in 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2) and that the States incur increased costs (incarceration, supervision, health, education) because DHS is not taking custody as the statutes require.
  • The district court held the States proved Article III injury (monetary and other costs), had standing, found the Guidelines unlawful under the APA, and vacated them; the Fifth Circuit denied a stay; the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.
  • The Supreme Court majority (Kavanaugh) reversed for lack of Article III standing, emphasizing history, precedent (notably Linda R. S.), and the special nonjusticiability of claims that seek to force the Executive to make more arrests/prosecutions.
  • Concurring opinions (Gorsuch joined by Thomas & Barrett; Barrett joined by Gorsuch) focused on redressability and serious questions about whether the APA authorizes universal vacatur; Justice Alito dissented, arguing traditional standing analysis was satisfied and warning about executive noncompliance with statute.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether States have Article III standing to challenge DHS Guidelines that deprioritize arrests States: monetary and non‑monetary costs flowing from DHS non‑enforcement (incarceration, supervision, services) are concrete, traceable, redressable injuries United States: injuries derive from Executive non‑enforcement; courts traditionally do not adjudicate claims asking them to order the Executive to arrest/prosecute more Held: No standing—historical practice and precedent (e.g., Linda R. S.) show courts are not proper forum to compel more arrests/prosecutions (majority)
Whether monetary costs incurred by States are "judicially cognizable" injuries States: monetary expenditures are concrete injuries that federal courts routinely redress United States: although monetary costs can be injuries, here they stem from enforcement decisions of third parties and are not the sort of dispute traditionally resolved by courts Held: Although monetary injury exists, it is not judicially cognizable here because the dispute is of a kind courts historically do not resolve
Whether Article II/enforcement discretion bars judicial relief compelling more arrests States: statutes use mandatory language (“shall”) limiting discretion and Congress can cabin enforcement United States: Article II grants broad enforcement discretion to Executive; courts lack meaningful standards to supervise such enforcement priorities Held: Executive enforcement discretion and lack of judicially manageable standards are reasons courts traditionally decline such suits (supports no standing)
Redressability and remedial limits (APA vacatur vs. §1252(f)(1) injunction bar) States: vacatur under APA (or injunction from this Court) would remove the Guidelines and restore enforcement consistent with statute, thereby redressing harms United States: §1252(f)(1) limits lower‑court injunctions against immigration enforcement; vacatur would not compel discretionary arrests; redress is speculative Held: Majority did not decide APA vacatur issue; concurring opinions stressed redressability problems and questioned whether vacatur is an available/effective remedy; redressability was an alternative ground in concurrences

Key Cases Cited

  • Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (standing requires an injury that is judicially cognizable and traditionally resolvable in courts)
  • Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to challenge prosecutorial policy when not prosecuted or threatened with prosecution)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injury fairly traceable to defendant and redressable by relief requested)
  • Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions not to prosecute/enforce are presumptively unreviewable under APA absent statutory guidelines)
  • Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (statutory "shall" may not create judicially enforceable police‑action mandates absent stronger congressional indication)
  • Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (State standing in regulatory non‑enforcement context given special solicitude for quasi‑sovereign interests)
  • Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (Executive has initial enforcement discretion in removal decisions; federal immigration authority is plenary)
  • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (framework for evaluating Executive action contrary to statute or congressional intent)
Read the full case