United States v. Texas

Summary

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge federal immigration-enforcement guidelines on the ground that they required insufficient arrests. Although the States alleged monetary injuries, precedent and historical practice did not recognize a judicially cognizable interest in compelling additional arrests or prosecutions of others. The Court reversed the District Court without deciding whether the guidelines violated the immigration statutes. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Barrett, concurred in the judgment because the States' injuries were not redressable through available relief; he also questioned whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes universal vacatur. Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Gorsuch, separately concurred in the judgment, endorsing the redressability rationale and criticizing the majority's combination of standing, enforcement discretion, and statutory-review doctrines. Justice Alito dissented, arguing that Texas satisfied the established standing requirements and that the majority's approach improperly expanded executive power at Congress's and the States' expense.