Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III standingseparation of powersexecutive enforcement discretionimmigration enforcementArticle IIIstandinginjury in fact

Facts

In 2021, DHS issued Guidelines prioritizing the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens, such as suspected terrorists, dangerous criminals, and recent unlawful entrants. Texas and Louisiana claimed the Guidelines conflicted with federal statutes that, in their view, required DHS to arrest and detain more criminal noncitizens pending removal. The States alleged that DHS's failure to make those additional arrests imposed costs on them, including incarceration and social-service expenses. They sought judicial relief that would effectively require DHS to change its arrest policy so that more noncitizens would be arrested.

Issue

Whether Texas and Louisiana had Article III standing to sue the Federal Government over DHS's immigration enforcement Guidelines on the theory that the Guidelines led DHS to arrest fewer noncitizens than federal statutes allegedly require, thereby increasing state costs. More specifically, could federal courts entertain a suit seeking to order the Executive Branch to make more arrests?

Rule

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by judicial relief, and the alleged injury must also be legally and judicially cognizable in the sense that the dispute is traditionally capable of resolution through the judicial process. Under this Court's precedents and historical practice, a plaintiff lacks standing to seek an order requiring the Executive Branch to alter its arrest or prosecution policies so as to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.

🔒

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.

Colorado sues the Department of Justice in federal court, alleging that a new federal policy tells prosecutors in Denver and elsewhere to prioritize only large interstate gun-trafficking cases and to decline many lower-level firearm-possession prosecutions. Colorado claims the policy forces the State to spend more on prison supervision and victim services because more offenders remain in the state system.

Does Colorado have Article III standing to seek an order requiring the Department of Justice to adopt a policy that results in more federal prosecutions?

Explanation. The majority held that Article III requires more than injury, causation, and redressability in the abstract; the asserted injury must also be legally and judicially cognizable in the sense that the dispute is traditionally fit for judicial resolution. A suit asking a federal court to order the Executive Branch to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions falls outside that traditional role. Alleged monetary costs do not overcome that barrier.