IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AMARILLO DIVISION

) 

STATE OF TEXAS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00094-Z

) 

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

 ) 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Defendants write to notify the Court of a decision in the other case challenging the Asylum 

Interim Final Rule (“IFR”), Arizona v. Garland, No. 6:22-cv-1130, 2024 WL 1645417 (W.D. La. 

Apr. 16, 2024). In that case, 19 States challenged the IFR raising standing arguments that are 

identical to what Texas argues in this case. After allowing jurisdictional discovery, Judge Joseph 

evaluated whether the States could show evidence of harm, as required in a factual attack on 

standing. Despite the fact that plaintiffs submitted far more evidence than Texas provided in this 

case, Judge Joseph concluded that none of the 19 States could show harm traceable to the IFR and 

dismissed the case for lack of standing. 

In assessing plaintiffs’ standing, Judge Joseph first found that because discovery was 

permitted and Defendants advanced a “factual attack” on jurisdiction, Plaintiffs were “required to 

submit facts through some evidentiary method” and had “the burden of proving by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Op. at 10. Judge 

Joseph then applied the familiar standard requiring plaintiffs to show “a concrete and particularized 

injury that is either actual or imminent,” “fairly traceable” to the IFR, and would be “redressed by 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 129 Filed 04/17/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1698
2 

a favorable decision.” Id. at 20-21. He noted that “‘harm’ in the immigration context is understood 

and evaluated as ‘relative to the status quo, and relative to Plaintiff’s position absent the challenged 

policy.’” Id. at 26 (citing Judge Tipton’s decision finding Texas lacked standing to challenge 

certain DHS policies in Texas v. DHS, No. 6:23-CV-00007, 2024 WL 1021068 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 

2024)). Judge Joseph, like Judge Tipton, held that a plaintiff may not simply rely on its pleadings 

in a factual attack on standing but rather must establish that “the number of aliens, and the 

associated costs attributable to them, increased relative to those same numbers prior to the 

implementation of the challenged program.” Id. at 26-27. He found a “key, central fact” 

undermining plaintiffs’ arguments for harm was that “[a]sylum positive credible fear findings and 

grant rates ... have gone down since the implementation of the Asylum IFR.” Op. 26-27; id. at 27-

28 (summarizing data showing post-IFR grant rates declined). 

Plaintiffs in the Louisiana case relied on alleged injuries to Louisiana and Florida to assert 

standing. Notably, unlike Texas, both Louisiana and Florida are states where DHS is conducting 

asylum merits interviews under the IFR. Nonetheless, Judge Joseph concluded neither State had 

shown harm from the IFR. Louisiana was unable to show any noncitizens processed under the IFR 

had used State services or caused additional costs to the State and, like Texas in this case, Louisiana 

was unable to “produce[ ] data or statistics showing that it has sustained any specific monetary 

cost ... on behalf of aliens processed under the Asylum IFR.” Op. at 29. The court also noted 

Louisiana was unable to show any increase in education costs traceable to the IFR and, in fact, 

education costs had “decreased since the Asylum IFR was implemented.” Id. at 31. Judge Joseph 

similarly noted Florida could not point to any evidence of additional costs for education, 

healthcare, or other State services for noncitizens processed under the IFR. Id. at 32-34. 

Judge Joseph found the 19 plaintiff states “lack[ed] standing to bring their claims 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 129 Filed 04/17/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1699
3 

challenging the Asylum IFR” because even “where the Asylum IFR’s asylum-adjudication 

procedures have been applied, the Rule has not resulted in a higher rate of positive credible fear 

findings or asylum grants by asylum officers,” and the States were “unable to otherwise 

demonstrate increased costs attributable to the implementation of the Asylum IFR relative to their 

costs before the Asylum IFR was implemented.” Op. at 35-36. If States where the IFR is being 

applied cannot show harm, then Texas, where DHS is not conducting asylum merits interviews 

under the IFR, also cannot show harm. Texas argued in response to Defendants’ motion to 

reconsider that “[t]he fact that the IFR may not name Texas destinations as applicable points of 

entry does not disprove Texas’s assertion that the IFR increased immigration to Texas,” because 

immigrants may move around. ECF No. 127 at 4. But Texas provided no evidence that asylum 

seekers subject to the asylum adjudication provisions of the IFR destined for other States were 

likely to relocate to Texas, and the Louisiana decision holds there is no evidence of any additional 

noncitizens present in other States as a result of the IFR who could move around or cause additional 

costs to any State, providing further support to Defendants’ motion to reconsider and dismiss. 

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court reconsider its prior decision 

and, for the same reasons as Judge Joseph, find Texas has not demonstrated Article III standing, 

and dismiss this case. 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 129 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1700
4 

Date: April 17, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

 BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY 

 Director 

 Office of Immigration Litigation 

District Court Section 

EREZ REUVENI 

Counsel

ERIN T. RYAN 

ELISSA P. FUDIM 

JOSEPH DARROW 

Trial Attorneys 

/s/ Brian C. Ward 

BRIAN C. WARD 

Senior Litigation Counsel

U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Division 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

District Court Section 

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044 

Tel.: (202) 616-9121 

Email: brian.c.ward@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 129 Filed 04/17/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1701
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on April 17, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using CM/ECF, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same 

to all attorneys of record. 

/s/ Brian C. Ward 

BRIAN C. WARD 

United States Department of Justice 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 129 Filed 04/17/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1702