United States v. Texas

Challenges to an agency's exercise of enforcement discretion are not the kind redressable by federal courts.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued immigration enforcement guidelines prioritizing the arrest and removal of certain groups of noncitizens. Texas and Louisiana challenged these guidelines and brought suit. They alleged DHS’s failure to arrest more criminal noncitizens violated federal statutes and that the cost of providing social services to and continuing incarceration of the noncitizens DHS failed to arrest constituted a monetary injury. The District Court vacated the guidelines, and the Fifth Circuit declined to stay that judgment. Plaintiffs must show legally and judicially cognizable injuries in fact that are caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order to establish Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Raines, 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997). “A citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). The Court reasoned that the Article III holding in Linda R.S. applied to the States’ challenge to DHS’s exercise of enforcement discretion because the agency’s decision not to arrest or prosecute, which is proper under the Executive Branch’s Article II powers, did not impede upon interests the federal courts protect. While extreme agency nonenforcement can support Article III standing, the States did not “advance[] a Heckler-style ‘abdication’ argument.” See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). Reversed.