Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

14 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

F. 4th 846, 859 (CA5 2022) (“The default rule is that vaca-
tur is the appropriate remedy” under the APA); United Steel 
v.  Mine  Safety  and  Health  Admin.,  925  F. 3d  1279,  1287 
(CADC 2019) (“The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful 
agency action”).7  We did not grant review on this very con-
sequential question, and I would not reach out to decide it
in a case in which Biden v. Texas resolves the issue of re-
dressability.

To be clear, I would be less troubled than I am today if
JUSTICE GORSUCH’s concurrence had commanded a major-
ity.  At  least  then,  Congress  would  be  free  to  amend
§1252(f ).  But the majority reaches out and redefines our
understanding  of  the  constitutional  limits  on  otherwise-
available  lawsuits.    It  is  to  this  misunderstanding  that  I 
now turn. 

III 
The  majority  adopts  the  remarkable  rule  that  injuries
from an executive decision not to arrest or prosecute, even 
in  a  civil  case,  are  generally  not  “cognizable.”  Ante,  at  4 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  Its reasoning has three 
failings.  First,  it  fails  to  engage  with  contrary  precedent 
that is squarely on point.  Second, it lacks support in the 
cases on which it relies.  Third, the exceptions (or possible 
exceptions) that it notes do nothing to allay concern about 
the majority’s break from our established test for Article III 
standing.  I address each of these problems in turn. 

—————— 

7 Our decision three years ago in Department of Homeland Security v. 
Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___ (2020), appears to have assumed 
that the APA authorizes this common practice.  We held that the rescis-
sion  of  the  Deferred  Action  for  Childhood  Arrivals  program  had  to  be 
“vacated” because DHS had violated the procedures required by the APA. 
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2).  If the court in that case had lacked the author-
ity to set aside the rule adopting the program, there would have been no 
need to examine the sufficiency of DHS’s procedures.