Texas v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawStandingAPAImmigrationDACAFinal Rulestandinginjury in fact

Facts

DHS created DACA in 2012 by memorandum, providing deferred action and associated benefits to certain childhood arrivals. After earlier litigation led the Fifth Circuit to affirm DACA's procedural and substantive defects but remand because DHS had promulgated a notice-and-comment Final Rule, DHS issued a 2022 Final Rule that continued DACA in materially the same form while adding an express severability clause. Texas challenged that Final Rule, asserting that DACA recipients impose substantial education, healthcare, and related costs on the state. The district court held the Rule unlawful, vacated it, enjoined it nationwide, and kept in place a stay for existing DACA recipients.

Issue

Whether Texas had Article III standing and a cause of action to challenge the DACA Final Rule, whether the Final Rule was substantively unlawful under the INA, and whether the district court's remedies of complete vacatur and nationwide injunction were proper. The appeal also raised whether the Rule's forbearance and benefits provisions were severable and whether relief should extend beyond Texas.

Rule

Under the Fifth Circuit's rule of orderliness, a prior panel's standing analysis remains binding unless an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision unequivocally overrules it. A state may establish Article III standing through concrete fiscal injuries traceable to an immigration policy that combines forbearance with the conferral of legal benefits, and redressability is satisfied by showing that relief would partially alleviate those costs. Under the APA, unlawful agency action is ordinarily vacated, remand without vacatur is reserved for rare cases where the agency could likely cure the defect and vacatur would be disruptive, and severability turns on agency intent and whether the remainder can function sensibly without the invalid provisions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Fifth Circuit previously held that Oklahoma had Article III standing to challenge a federal immigration rule because the rule increased the state's education and emergency-medical costs. Two years later, DHS replaces the rule with a notice-and-comment regulation that is materially identical in operation. In the new appeal, the government argues that a recent Supreme Court case discussing standing in a different enforcement-policy challenge undermines the earlier Fifth Circuit decision.

How should the Fifth Circuit treat the prior standing holding?

Explanation. The majority applied the Fifth Circuit's rule of orderliness strictly. A prior panel's standing analysis continues to control unless a later Supreme Court, en banc Fifth Circuit, or statutory change unequivocally overrules it. Mere tension, hints, or illuminating dicta are not enough, even when the agency reissues a materially identical policy through rulemaking.