Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
United States v. Texas (2022)
 | |
| United States v. Texas | |
| Term: 2022 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: November 29, 2022 Decided: June 23, 2023 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reversed | |
| Vote | |
| 8-1 | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • Brett Kavanaugh • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
| Concurring | |
| Neil Gorsuch (in judgment) • Amy Coney Barrett (in judgment) • Clarence Thomas (in judgment) | |
| Dissenting | |
| Samuel Alito | |
- See also: Guidance
United States v. Texas was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 8-1 on June 23, 2023, concerning whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) September 2021 guidance directing immigration enforcement officials to prioritize the arrest and deportation of certain groups of individuals who entered the country without legal permission violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that Texas and Louisiana did not have standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
- "Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law;
- "Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. §1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and
- "Whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the Guidelines under 5 U.S.C. §706(2)."
The case came on a writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower courts' opinions, click here.
Why it matters: The court's decision in the case clarified that states lack standing to challenge the scope of the executive branch's immigration enforcement because the separation of powers limits the judicial branch from directing executive branch enforcement discretion.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- June 23, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- November 29, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- July 21, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court denied the application to stay the lower court's judgment and granted certiorari to hear the case.
- July 8, 2022: The federal government submitted an application to stay—or put on hold—the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas' judgment and also filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment.
Background
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Department of Homeland Security deportation policy
In a memorandum dated September 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) set forth guidelines for prioritizing the deportation of noncitizens from the United States. DHS stated it would "prioritize for apprehension and removal noncitizens who are a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security" by focusing its deportation efforts on suspected terrorists, individuals who committed serious crimes, and noncitizens caught at the border.[2]
DHS issued the policy through guidance—a term in administrative law used to describe a variety of documents created by government agencies to explain, interpret, or advise interested parties about rules, laws, and procedures. Guidance documents clarify and affect how agencies administer regulations and programs, but they are not legally binding in the same way as rules issued through one of the rulemaking processes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Click here to find out more about agency guidance.
Legal background
The states of Texas and Louisiana filed suit in federal court challenging the policy. On June 10, 2022, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Drew Tipton invalidated the policy as "arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and failing to observe procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act," and barred the guidance from going into effect nationwide.[3] On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the 5th Circuit agreed with the district court and declined to put the district court's ruling on hold while the federal government appealed.[3]
On July 8, the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to halt the district court's ruling that blocked the guidance nationwide. On July 21 in a 5-4 order, the court declined to reinstate the policy but agreed to hear arguments in the case during its 2022 term, prior to any ruling by the 5th Circuit. In its order, the court noted it would set the argument date for the first week of December 2022.[1]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:
Question presented:[1]
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[5]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[6]
Outcome
The court ruled 8-1 that Texas and Louisiana did not have legal standing to challenge the immigration enforcement guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security. It reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruling.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Samuel Alito delivered a dissenting opinion.[7]
Opinion
Opinion of the court
- See also: Standing
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, which argued that Texas and Louisana did not have Article III standing to challenge the guidance, based on the principle that a citizen lacks standing if they are not being prosecuted or threatened with prosecution.[8]
| “ | The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests. But this Court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’ Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619 (1973). Consistent with that fundamental Article III principle, we conclude that the States lack Article III standing to bring this suit.[8][4] | ” |
Concurring in judgment
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. He agreed with the majority opinion that the states lacked Article III standing but argued instead that it was based on the inability of the courts to redress their injuries.[8]
| “ | In our system of government, federal courts play an important but limited role by resolving cases and controversies. Standing doctrine honors this limitation at the front end of every lawsuit. It preserves a forum for plaintiffs seeking relief for concrete and personal harms while filtering out those with generalized grievances that belong to a legislature to address. Traditional remedial rules do similar work at the back end of a case. They ensure successful plaintiffs obtain meaningful relief. But they also restrain courts from altering rights and obligations more broadly in ways that would interfere with the power reserved to the people’s elected representatives. In this case, standing and remedies intersect. The States lack standing because federal courts do not have authority to redress their injuries. Section 1252(f )(1) denies the States any coercive relief. A vacatur order under §706(2) supplies them no effectual relief. And such an order itself may not even be legally permissible. The States urge us to look past these problems, but I do not see how we might. The Constitution affords federal courts considerable power, but it does not establish ‘government by lawsuit.’[8][4] | ” |
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. She agreed with the majority opinion that the states lacked Article III standing, but also argued against the majority’s reasoning. Barrett wrote that the states lacked standing because of a lack of redressability.[8]
| “ | Viewed properly, Linda R. S. simply represents a specific application of the general principle that ‘when the plaintiff is not himself the object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily ‘substantially more difficult’ to establish’ given the causation and redressability issues that may arise. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 562 (1992). That is true for the States here. I see little reason to seize on the case’s bonus discussion of whether ‘a private citizen’ has a ‘judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another’ to establish a broad rule of Article III standing.[8][4] | ” |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Samuel Alito delivered a dissenting opinion, which argued that the states did have Article III standing to challenge the immigration enforcement guidance. Alito argued against the majority opinion’s use of precedent and test for standing and claimed that the court “disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial.”[8]
| “ | That holding not only violates the Constitution’s allocation of authority among the three branches of the Federal Government; it also undermines federalism. This Court has held that the Federal Government’s authority in the field of immigration severely restricts the ability of States to enact laws or follow practices that address harms resulting from illegal immigration. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 401 (2012). If States are also barred from bringing suit even when they satisfy our established test for Article III standing, they are powerless to defend their vital interests. If a President fails or refuses to enforce the immigration laws, the States must simply bear the consequences. That interpretation of executive authority and Article III’s case or controversy requirement is deeply and dangerously flawed.[8][4] | ” |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here .
Commentary about the case
Pre-decision commentary
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that aims “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people,” according to their website, published an article regarding the case, stating, “The case raises many important legal questions, which could determine not only whether the priorities are legal, but also when states are permitted to go to court to challenge federal immigration enforcement decisions. Before the Court can decide whether the priorities are legal, it will need to decide whether the states have standing to challenge them in the first place. Plaintiffs can only challenge a policy that harms them in a concrete way. But in their many recent challenges to immigration and other federal policies, states like Texas have relied on minor and uncertain harms—here, they claim that the priorities will lead people to be released, and some may then commit crimes or use state public benefits. The federal government has asked the Court to first decide whether that’s enough for standing. If it is, then going forward, states may be able to challenge virtually every immigration policy in court.”[9][10]
Amy Howe wrote an article for SCOTUSblog outlining responses to the case and stated, “Eighteen states with Republican attorneys general, led by Arizona, filed a 'friend of the court' brief supporting Texas and Louisiana. Like Texas and Louisiana, the states stress that the federal government’s immigration policies 'impose significant costs on the States, including billions of dollars in new expenses relating to law enforcement, education, and healthcare programs.' And they launch a broader attack on U.S. immigration policy generally, contending that it has created an 'unmitigated disaster' at the U.S.-Mexico border.”[11]
Teresa Messer, the director and a professor at the Immigration Clinic at the University of Houston Law Center, said in an interview with Texas Standard, “I believe it could be problematic in that this particular issue, there has been precedential case law and policies that have shown that they have been using priority enforcements in the past, and there was no issue with it previously, so in bringing such this issue, I think that can open the doors to more litigation if they allow for states to sue under these grounds.”[12]
Post-decision commentary
Smita Ghosh wrote in a press release for the Constitutional Accountability Center, a nonprofit law firm and think tank, “While the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the challenge to the Administration’s policy memo, ruling instead on standing grounds, its decision is significant insofar as it allows immigration officials to cope with limited enforcement resources by carefully prioritizing particular noncitizens for removal, as they have done for decades.”[13]
Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) argued against the decision, stating that, “SCOTUS gives the Biden Admin. carte blanche to avoid accountability for abandoning enforcement of immigration laws… Texas will continue to deploy the National Guard to repel & turn back illegal immigrants trying to enter Texas illegally,” according to The New York Times.[14]
Impact
- See also: Standing
The decision of the Supreme Court clarified that states lack standing to challenge executive branch enforcement discretion of immigration policies. The ruling determined that the judicial branch is limited by the separation of powers and cannot direct the executive branch on enforcement guidance.
October term 2022-2023
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[15]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - United States v. Texas (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for United States v. Texas
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "ORDER LIST," July 21, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Memorandum: Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law," September 30, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "U.S. v. Texas - APPENDIX," accessed July 22, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 29, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 29, 2022
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "United States v. Texas," accessed June 23, 2023
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Justia, "United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. _ (2023)," accessed June 23, 2023
- ↑ ACLU, "United States v. Texas," February 27, 2023
- ↑ ACLU, "FAQs," accessed June 26, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states' ability to challenge federal policies," November 28, 2022
- ↑ Texas Standard, "Supreme Court hears oral arguments in United States v. Texas, raising big questions on immigration policy," November 29, 2022
- ↑ Constitutional Accountability Center, "RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Allows Administration to Prioritize Certain Noncitizens for Immigration Enforcement, as Presidential Administrations Have Done for Decades," June 23, 2023
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Revives Biden Immigration Guidelines," June 23, 2023
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
