United States v. Texas
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Texas and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Texas.
The Supreme Court decided that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the 2021 immigration-enforcement guidelines issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Court found that the states did not demonstrate a legally cognizable injury that could be resolved through the judicial process. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower court's decision that had vacated the guidelines.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Texas.
The Court held that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the immigration-enforcement guidelines.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Texas. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to United States v. Texas
The Court's decision primarily revolves around whether Texas and Louisiana have Article III standing to challenge the immigration-enforcement guidelines.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to United States v. Texas
The case involves the Executive Branch's discretion in enforcing immigration laws, which is a matter of executive power.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.'
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to United States v. Texas
The Court's analysis includes whether the judiciary can review and potentially order the Executive Branch to take enforcement actions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The discrete standing question raised by this case rarely arises because federal statutes that purport to require the Executive Branch to make arrests or bring prosecutions are rare.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Texas that support the summary and concepts above.
Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines.
The alleged injury must also 'be legally and judicially cognizable.'
Federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.
