Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–58.  Argued November 29, 2022—Decided June 23, 2023 

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated new immigra-
tion-enforcement guidelines (Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil
Immigration  Law)  that  prioritize  the  arrest  and  removal  from  the 
United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous 
criminals  or who have unlawfully  entered  the  country  only recently, 
for example.  The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guide-
lines contravene two federal statutes that they read to require the ar-
rest  of  certain  noncitizens  upon  their  release  from  prison  (8  U. S. C. 
§1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (§1231(a)(2)).  The District 
Court found that the States would incur costs due to the Executive’s 
failure to comply with those alleged statutory mandates, and that the
States had standing to sue based on those costs.  On the merits, the 
District Court found the Guidelines unlawful and vacated them.  The 
Fifth Circuit declined to stay the District Court’s judgment, and this
Court granted certiorari before judgment. 

Held: Texas  and  Louisiana  lack  Article  III  standing  to  challenge  the

Guidelines.  Pp. 3–14.

(a) Under  Article  III,  a  plaintiff  must  have  standing  to  sue.  This 
bedrock constitutional requirement has its roots in the separation of 
powers.  So  the  threshold  question  here  is  whether  the  States  have 
standing to maintain this suit.  Based on this Court’s precedents and
longstanding historical practice, the answer is no. 

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused 
by the defendant and redressable by a court order.  The District Court 
found  that  the  States  would  incur  additional  costs  due  to  the  chal-
lenged arrest policy.  And monetary costs are an injury.  But this Court 
has stressed that the alleged injury must also “be legally and judicially
cognizable.”  Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819.  That requires that