Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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 ALITO, dissenting. 
The Court holds Texas lacks standing to challenge a fed-
eral policy that inflicts substantial harm on the State and 
its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal con-
victions  for  serious  crimes.   In  order  to  reach  this  conclu-
sion,  the  Court  brushes  aside  a  major  precedent  that  di-
rectly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our 
established  test  for  standing,  disregards  factual  findings
made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the 
only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like 
the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to em-
ploy  the  weapons  of  inter-branch  warfare—withholding 
funds,  impeachment  and  removal,  etc.  I  would  not  blaze 
this  unfortunate  trail.    I  would  simply  apply  settled  law,
which  leads  ineluctably  to  the  conclusion  that  Texas  has 
standing.

This  Court  has  long  applied  a  three-part  test  to  deter-
mine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue.  Under that 
test, a plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove that it has 
been  subjected  to  or  imminently  faces  an  injury  that  is: 
(1) “concrete and particularized,” (2) “fairly traceable to the 
challenged action,” and (3) “likely” to be “redressed by a fa-
vorable decision.”  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 
555, 560–561 (1992) (internal quotation marks and altera-
tions omitted).  Under that familiar test, Texas clearly has