The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Texas and Louisiana lack the standing to sue the Biden administration over its immigration policy regarding enforcement prioritization. A coalition of liberal and conservative justices joined together to form the majority in United States v. Texas. Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter.
The back story
In 2021, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas created a new immigration policy that prioritized the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals, or who have recently entered the country unlawfully.
Texas and Louisiana sued because they wanted the administration to have even stricter guidelines that expand enforcement measures. The states argued the new policy broke federal immigration law.
Article III standing
The justices determined those states do not have standing to sue under Article III, which is established when the plaintiff proves they suffered an injury that can be resolved by a court order.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, “The States have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain his reasoning.
“When the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’”
“In sum, the States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests,” the majority opinion stated.
Although this was a ruling in the Biden administration’s favor, the majority clarified that their decision does not take a stance on whether the administration’s immigration policy is legal.
In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote the states did show proper standing.
“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,” Alito wrote.
