Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

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

soon as the Court announces this general rule, it adds a ca-
veat,  stressing  that  “[t]his  case  concerns  only  arrest  and 
prosecution policies.”  Ante, at 12, n. 5.  It’s a curious quali-
fication.  Article II does not have an Arrest and Prosecution 
Clause. 
It  endows  the  President  with  the  “executive 
Power,” §1, cl. 1, and charges him with “tak[ing] Care” that
federal laws are “faithfully executed,” §3.  These provisions
give the President a measure of discretion over the enforce-
ment of all federal laws, not just those that can lead to ar-
rest and prosecution.  So if the Court means what it says
about Article II, can it mean what it says about the narrow-
ness of its holding?  There’s another curious qualification in 
the  Court’s  opinion  too.  “[T]he  standing  calculus  might
change,” we are told, “if the Executive Branch wholly aban-
doned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring 
prosecutions.”  Ante, at 11.  But the Court declines to say 
more  than  that  because  “the  States  have  not  advanced” 
such an argument.  Ibid.  Is that true, though?  The States 
have  pleaded  a  claim  under  the  Take  Care  Clause.    App.
106.  Is that not an abdication argument?  Did they fail to 
plead it properly?  Or is the Court simply ignoring it? 

II 
As I see it, the jurisdictional problem the States face in
this case isn’t the lack of a “judicially cognizable” interest
or  injury.  Ante,  at  5  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
The States proved that the Guidelines increase the number 
of  aliens  with  criminal  convictions  and  final  orders  of  re-
moval released into the States.  They also proved that, as a 
result, they spend more money on everything from law en-
forcement to healthcare.  The problem the States face con-
cerns something else altogether—a lack of redressability.

To  establish  redressability,  a  plaintiff  must  show  from 
the outset of its suit that its injuries are capable of being 
remedied “ ‘by a favorable decision.’ ”  Lujan, 504 U. S., at 
561; see also id., at 570, n. 5 (plurality opinion).  Ordinarily,