Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 50

8 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Much of the District Court’s analysis of that issue focused 
on the Final Memorandum’s effect on the “detainer” system, 
606 F. Supp. 3d, at 459–463, and it is therefore important 
to understand how that system works in relation to the rel-
evant statutory provisions.  When an alien in state custody 
for a criminal offense is identified as falling within a cate-
gory  of  aliens  whose  apprehension  and  detention  is  re-
quired by §§1226(a) and (c), the Government should lodge a
“detainer” with the State so that the Government can take 
the  alien  into  custody  when  he  or  she  is  released  by  the 
State.  Then, when an alien is about to be released, a coop-
erative State will notify DHS so that it can be ready to as-
sume its obligation under §§1226(a) and (c) to take the alien
into federal custody.  When that occurs, the State is spared 
the burdens it would have to bear if the alien, after release, 
had  been  placed  under  state  law  on  probation,  parole,  or 
supervised release.  But if DHS rescinds a detainer before 
such an alien is released (or never lodges a detainer in the 
first place), those burdens fall on the State. 

After reviewing the parties’ evidence, the District Court
found  that  in  the  first  month  after  the  substantive  policy 
change brought about by the January 2021 DHS memoran-
dum, ICE had rescinded 141 detainers in Texas.3  Ninety-
five of the criminal aliens whose detainers were rescinded 
were then released on a form of state supervision.  Seven-
teen of them went on to violate their terms of supervision, 
and four committed new crimes.  Id., at 459. 

The  court  then  examined  what  had  taken  place  during
just the time “since the Final Memorandum became effec-
tive” and found that “because of the Final Memorandum,” 
“ICE ha[d] continued to rescind detainers placed on crimi-
nal aliens in [Texas’s] custody,” and the court identified 15 

—————— 

3 This figure excludes instances where a detainer was withdrawn but 
then reissued, or where an alien previously subject to a withdrawn de-
tainer was taken into federal custody.