Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

1 

 BARRETT, J., concurring
BARRETT, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–58 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2023] 

JUSTICE  BARRETT,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

concurring in the judgment. 

I  agree  with  the  Court  that  the  States  lack  standing  to
challenge the Federal Government’s Guidelines for the en-
forcement of immigration law.  But I reach that conclusion 
for  a  different  reason:  The  States  failed  to  show  that  the 
District  Court  could  order  effective  relief.    JUSTICE 
GORSUCH ably explains why that is so.  Ante, p. 1 (opinion 
concurring in judgment).  And because redressability is an
essential element of Article III standing, the District Court 
did not have jurisdiction. 

The Court charts a different path.  In its view, this case 
can be resolved based on what it calls the “fundamental Ar-
ticle III principle” that “ ‘a citizen lacks standing to contest
the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is
neither  prosecuted  nor  threatened  with  prosecution.’ ”  
Ante, at 1 (quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 
619 (1973)).  In other words, the Court says, the States have 
not asserted a “ ‘judicially cognizable interest’ ” in this case. 
Ante, at 5.  Respectfully, I would not take this route. 

To begin with, I am skeptical that Linda R. S. suffices to 
resolve  this  dispute.  First,  the  Court  reads  that  decision 

I