United States v. Texas (2023)
| United States v. Texas | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 29, 2022 Decided June 23, 2023 | |
| Full case name | United States, et al. v. Texas, et al. |
| Docket no. | 22-58 |
| Citations | 599 U.S. 670 (more) 143 S. Ct. 1964 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| (1) Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; and (2) Whether the Guidelines are contrary to or , or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) Whether prevents the entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" the Guidelines under . | |
| Holding | |
| Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment), joined by Thomas, Barrett |
| Concurrence | Barrett (in judgment), joined by Gorsuch |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. III | |
United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Texas and Louisiana did not have Article III standing to challenge a Biden administration policy prioritizing "the apprehension and deportation of three specific groups of people: suspected terrorists, non-citizens who have committed crimes, and those caught recently at the border." The courts ruling was superseded in part by the passage of the Laken Riley Act which "authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100".