Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 53

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

not plausibly hold—that these findings are clearly errone-
ous.  Instead,  it  observes  only  that  a  “State’s  claim  for
standing can become more attenuated” when based on the 
“indirect  effects”  of  federal  policies  “on  state  revenues  or 
state spending.”  Ante, at 9, n. 3.  But while it is certainly
true that indirect injuries may be harder to prove, an indi-
rect financial injury that is proved at trial supports stand-
ing.  And  that  is  what  happened  here.  As  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH  notes,  just  a  few  years  ago,  we  found  in  a  very 
important case that a State had standing based in part on
indirect financial injury.  Ante, at 3 (opinion concurring in 
judgment)  (citing  Department  of  Commerce  v.  New  York, 
588 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 9–10)).  There is 
no justification for a conflicting holding here.

In any event, many of the costs in this case are not indi-
rect.  When the Federal Government refuses or fails to com-
ply with §§1226(a) and (c) as to criminal aliens, the direct 
result in many cases is that the State must continue its su-
pervision.  As noted, the District Court made specific find-
ings about the financial cost that Texas incurred as a result 
of  DHS’s  failure  to  assume  custody  of  aliens  covered  by
§§1226(a)  and  (c).    And  the  costs  that  a  State  must  bear 
when it is required to assume the supervision of criminal
aliens who should be kept in federal custody  are not only
financial.  Criminal  aliens  whom DHS  unlawfully  refuses
to detain may be placed on state probation, parole, or su-
pervised release, and some will commit new crimes and end 
up in a state jail or prison.  Probation, parole, and correc-
tions officers are engaged in dangerous work that can put
their lives on the line. 

Redressability.  A court order that forecloses reliance on 
the memorandum would likely redress the States’ injuries. 
If, as the District Court found, DHS personnel rescind de-
tainers “because of ” the Final Memorandum, then vacating
that memorandum would likely lead to those detainers’ re-
maining in place.