US Supreme Court rules states lack constitutional standing in key immigration case News
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court rules states lack constitutional standing in key immigration case

The US Supreme Court ruled Friday in US v. Texas that Texas and Louisiana do not have constitutional standing to sue the federal government over a 2021 Homeland Security Memorandum that focuses immigration enforcement actions on non-citizens who are suspected of terrorism, committed serious crimes or are caught at the border entering illegally.

The crux of the case rests on Article III of the US Constitution, which governs the Court’s judicial purview. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, largely relied on the precedent set by Linda R.S. V. Richard D., which prevented an individual from suing a state, where the state had a policy of only prosecuting some who did not pay child support. Justice Kavanaugh writes, quoting Linda R.S.:

The Court concluded that “a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” The Court’s Article III holding in Linda R. S. applies to challenges to the Executive Branch’s exercise of enforcement discretion over whether to arrest or prosecute.

Justice Kavanaugh also pointed out the lack of historical precedent cited by the states in their brief, saying, “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.”

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas concurred with the judgment. Justice Gorsuch mainly focused on the issue of injury vs. redressability, meaning while the States proved injury in the form of costs and safety concerns, they did not prove that these injuries could be allayed by the Court. Justice Barrett also focused on the issue of redressability in her concurrence.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, sharply criticizing the majority, comparing its conception of executive power to that of a king, saying, “The majority’s conception of Presidential authority smacks of the powers that English monarchs claimed prior to the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, namely, the power to suspend the operation of existing statutes, and to grant dispensations from compliance with statutes.”

The states of Texas and Louisiana originally filed their lawsuit against the federal government in 2021, saying:

The Biden Administration is refusing to take custody of criminal aliens despite federal statutes requiring it to do so. Instead, Defendants have issued and implemented unlawful agency memoranda that allow criminal aliens already convicted of felony offenses to roam free in the United States. Such aliens belong in federal custody, as Congress required.

The US District Court Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the states, enjoining Homeland Security from enforcing the memorandum.

Multiple states including New York, California and Massachusetts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Homeland Security and the federal government, while others such as Arizona, Alabama and Florida filed in support of Texas and Louisiana, dividing the states largely along party lines.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas celebrated the ruling, saying, “DHS [Department of Homeland Security] looks forward to reinstituting these Guidelines, which had been effectively applied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to focus limited resources and enforcement actions on those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security.”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott criticized the ruling, saying, “This decision is outrageous. SCOTUS [the Supreme Court] gives the Biden Admin. carte blanche to avoid accountability for abandoning enforcement of immigration laws.”

THIS DAY @ LAW

Justice Department brings anit-trust action against AT&T

On November 20, 1974, the Department of Justice filed its final anti-trust suit against AT&T. United States v. AT&T was ultimately settled out of court with an agreement that the corporation would break up its monopoly on phone service throughout the country.

Nuremberg war crimes trials began

On November 20, 1945, the war crimes trials of Nazi World War II leaders began in the German city of Nuremberg. Review the Nuremberg Tribunal's Charter and the verdicts and sentences handed down on major war figures.

Winston Churchill born

On November 20, 1874, Sir Winston Churchill was born in Woodstock, England. He would go on to lead the United Kingdom as Prime Minister through World War II. Toward the end of the war, Churchill worked with US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to craft the treaties and accords that have defined the world since WWII. A 2002 poll by the BBC declared Churchill the Greatest Briton of all time.

New Jersey ratifies Bill of Rights

New Jersey ratified the Bill of Rights, a set of 10 fundamental amendments to the US Constitution, on November 20, 1789, becoming the first state to do so. The state also ratified an amendment on federal representation which ultimately failed. Additionally, New Jersey rejected an amendment on congressional salaries, which would eventually become the 27th Amendment more than 200 years later. Read the articles ratified by New Jersey.