The US Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments regarding Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to the Biden administration’s immigration policy. The court asked the parties to address three legal issues: (1) whether the states had legal right to bring their lawsuit; (2) the legality of the policy itself; and (3) whether the district courts had power to block Biden’s immigration policy nationwide.

The states argued that they have the authority to challenge the federal policy that may impose indirect harms on their own taxing or spending. General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, disagreed with this view. Prelogar suggested the states’ argument would allow states to challenge any federal policy that cost states money. Justices Jackson and Kagan agreed with Prelogar’s argument.

The court also focused on whether Biden’s immigration policy would require the federal government to detain noncitizens who have committed crimes after their release and noncitizens who are affected by final deportation orders. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh expressed concern that little would change even if the states prevail. They pointed out that the government would still be unable to detain all 11 million noncitizens even if the states won their case.

On the question of whether the district court had the authority to block the policy from being implemented nationwide, Prelogar suggested that district courts only have the power to disregard policies rather than invalidate the  altogether. Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh and Jackson pushed back against Prelogar’s argument.