Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

specific cases in which this had occurred.  Id., at 460.  Re-
jecting the Government’s claim that these dropped detain-
ers were necessary in light of “limited resources,” the court
found that “the Government . . . persistently underutilized
existing detention facilities” during the relevant time and 
that  the  average  daily  detained  population  in  April  2022
was less than 40% of the 3-year high in August 2019.  Id., 
at 453, 481, 488. 

Based  on  these  findings  of  fact  and  historical  data,  the
District Court identified four categories of costs that Texas 
had suffered and would continue to bear as a result of the 
relevant DHS actions.  First, the court calculated the dollars-
and-cents cost that Texas had to bear in order to supervise
criminal aliens who were released in violation of §§1226(a),
(c).  Id., at 463.  Second, it noted the costs associated with 
criminal recidivism.  Id., at 464.  Third, it found that some 
juvenile offenders who “are not detained by ICE because of 
the  Final  Memorandum”  will  attend  Texas  public  schools 
(and  at  least  one  juvenile  due  to  be  released  will  do  so). 
Ibid.  Fourth, it concluded that the hundreds of millions of 
dollars that Texas annually spends on healthcare for illegal
aliens  would  increase  when  some  criminal  aliens  not  de-
tained  “because  of  the  Final  Memorandum”  make  use  of 
those services.  Id., at 465. 

Concluding that these costs established Texas’s injury for 
standing purposes, the District Court went on to hold that
the Final Memorandum was contrary to law and that Texas 
had therefore established a violation of the APA.4  As I will 
explain, it is a common practice for courts in APA cases to
set aside an improper final agency action, and that is what 

—————— 

4 The District Court also concluded that the Final Memorandum was 
“arbitrary and capricious,” and had not undergone “notice and comment,” 
resulting in separate APA violations.  606 F. Supp. 3d, at 492, 495.  Be-
cause the majority’s standing analysis applies equally to any APA viola-
tion, I focus only on the contrary-to-law claim and express no opinion on
these further claims.