Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

at  any  step,  the  court  cannot  reach  the  merits  of  the  dis-
pute.  See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 
U. S. 83, 102–104 (1998).  This is true whether the plaintiff 
is a private person or a State.  After all, standing doctrine 
derives from Article III, and nothing in that provision sug-
gests a State may have standing when a similarly situated
private party does not.  See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 
497, 536–538 (2007) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). 

The Court holds that Texas and Louisiana lack standing 
to challenge the Guidelines because “a party lacks a judi-
cially cognizable interest in the prosecution . . . of another.” 
Ante, at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted).  To be sure, 
the district court found that the Guidelines have led to an 
increase in the number of aliens with criminal convictions 
and final orders of removal who are released into the States. 
606 F. Supp. 3d 437, 459–463, 467 (SD Tex. 2022).  The dis-
trict court also found that, thanks to this development, the
States have spent, and continue to spend, more money on
law enforcement, incarceration, and social services.  Id., at 
463–465, 467.  Still, the Court insists, “[s]everal good rea-
sons explain why” these harms are insufficient to afford the
States standing to challenge the Guidelines.  Ante, at 6. 

I  confess  to  having  questions  about  each  of  the  reasons 
the Court offers.  Start with its observation that the States 
have not pointed to any “historical practice” of courts order-
ing the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution
policies.  Ante, at 5, 6.  The Court is right, of course, that
“history and tradition offer a meaningful guide to the types 
of  cases  that  Article  III  empowers  federal  courts  to  con-
sider.”  TransUnion  LLC  v.  Ramirez,  594  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2021)  (slip  op.,  at  8)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
But, again, the district court found that the Guidelines im-
pose “significant costs” on the States.  606 F. Supp. 3d, at 
495.  The  Court  today  does  not  set  aside  this  finding  as 
clearly erroneous.  Nor does anyone dispute that even one 
dollar’s worth of harm is traditionally enough to “qualify as