Supreme Court says Texas can't sue Biden admin. over immigration enforcement policies
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Texas and Louisiana do not have the standing to challenge immigration law guidelines issued by the Biden administration in 2021.
In an 8-1 decision in Texas et al. v United States, the high court ruled that guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security months after President Joe Biden took office could not be challenged by the states.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, writing that the states did not have standing to sue the federal government under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
"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," wrote Kavanaugh.
"Moreover, lawsuits alleging that the Executive Branch has made an insufficient number of arrests or brought an insufficient number of prosecutions run up against the Executive's Article II authority to enforce federal law."
Kavanaugh noted, "this Court has declared that the Executive Branch also retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States."
"In light of inevitable resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs, the Executive Branch must balance many factors when devising arrest and prosecution policies. That complicated balancing process in turn leaves courts without meaningful standards for assessing those policies," he added.
The lone dissent came from Justice Samuel Alito, who argued that the majority "brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress's power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare — withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc."
"I would not blaze this unfortunate trail. I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing," Alito continued.
"In future cases, Presidential power may be extended even further. That disturbing possibility is bolstered by the Court's refusal to reject the Government's broader argument."
In September 2021, DHS issued the "Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law," which, among other things, curbed the extent to which detention could be used on those who illegally entered the country.
"It is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable noncitizens in the United States," stated the guidelines.
"We do not have the resources to apprehend and seek the removal of every one of these noncitizens. Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement action."
Texas and Louisiana both sued the federal government over the 2021 guidelines, arguing that the guidelines violated federal detention mandates that were created by Congress.
U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton sided with the states in June 2022, arguing that "this case is about a rule that binds Department of Homeland Security officials in a generalized, prospective manner-all in contravention of Congress's detention mandate."
"It is also true that the Executive Branch may prioritize its resources. But it must do so within the bounds set by Congress. Whatever the outer limits of its authority, the Executive Branch does not have the authority to change the law," wrote Tipton.
"Using the words' discretion' and 'prioritization,' the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates. The law does not sanction this approach. Accepting the Executive Branch's position would have profound consequences for the separation of powers."
The Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case last November.
