Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

not resolve the Article III consequences of such a policy. 

Fifth,  policies  governing  the  continued  detention  of 
noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might 
raise  a  different  standing  question  than  arrest  or 
prosecution  policies.   Cf.  Biden  v.  Texas,  597  U. S.  ___ 
(2022).  But this case does not concern a detention policy, so
we do not address the issue here.5 

D 
The discrete standing question raised by this case rarely
arises because federal statutes that purport to require the 
Executive Branch to make arrests or bring prosecutions are 
rare—not  surprisingly,  given  the  Executive’s  Article  II 
authority  to  enforce  federal  law  and  the  deeply  rooted
history of enforcement discretion in American law.  Indeed, 
the States cite no similarly worded federal laws.  This case 
therefore  involves  both  a  highly  unusual  provision  of
federal law and a highly unusual lawsuit.

To be clear, our Article III decision today should in no way 
be  read  to  suggest  or  imply  that  the  Executive  possesses
some  freestanding  or  general  constitutional  authority  to
disregard  statutes  requiring  or  prohibiting  executive
action.  Moreover, the Federal Judiciary of course routinely 
and  appropriately  decides 
justiciable  cases  involving 
statutory  requirements  or  prohibitions  on  the  Executive. 

—————— 

5 This  case  concerns  only  arrest  and  prosecution  policies,  and  we 
therefore address only that issue.  As to detention, the Solicitor General 
has  represented  that  the  Department’s  Guidelines  do  not  affect 
continued detention of noncitizens already in federal custody.  See Brief 
for Petitioners 24; Tr. of Oral Arg. 40 (Solicitor General:  “the Guidelines 
govern  only  decisions  about  apprehension  and  removal,  whether  to 
charge  a  non-citizen  in  the  first  place.  . . .  the  Guidelines  don’t  have 
anything  to  do  with  continued  detention”);  Guidelines  Memorandum, 
App.  111  (“This  memorandum  provides  guidance  for  the  apprehension 
and  removal  of  noncitizens”);  id.,  at  113  (“We  will  prioritize  for 
apprehension and removal noncitizens who are a threat to our national
security, public safety, and border security”).