Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

enforcement efforts.  See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 
598, 607–608 (1985).  That is because the Executive Branch 
(i)  invariably  lacks  the  resources  to  arrest  and  prosecute
every  violator  of  every  law  and  (ii)  must  constantly  react 
and  adjust  to  the  ever-shifting  public-safety  and  public-
welfare needs of the American people.

This  case  illustrates  the  point.  As  the  District  Court 
found, the Executive Branch does not possess the resources 
necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered
by  §1226(c)  and  §1231(a)(2).  That  reality  is  not  an 
anomaly—it  is  a  constant.  For  the  last  27  years  since
§1226(c)  and  §1231(a)(2)  were  enacted  in  their  current
form, all five Presidential administrations have determined 
that  resource  constraints  necessitated  prioritization  in 
making immigration arrests.

In light of inevitable resource constraints and regularly
changing  public-safety  and  public-welfare  needs,  the 
Executive  Branch  must  balance  many  factors  when
devising arrest and prosecution policies.  That complicated 
balancing process in turn leaves courts without meaningful
  Cf.  Heckler  v. 
standards  for  assessing  those  policies.
Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 830–832 (1985); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 
U. S.  182,  190–192  (1993).    Therefore,  in  both  Article  III 
cases  and Administrative  Procedure  Act  cases,  this  Court 
has  consistently  recognized  that  federal  courts  are 
generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the
Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more 
prosecutions.  See Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 619; cf. Heckler, 
470 U. S., at 831 (recognizing the “general unsuitability for 
judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement”); 
ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 283 (1987) (“it 
is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the
subject of judicial review”).3 

—————— 

3 Also, the plaintiffs here are States, and federal courts must remain 
mindful  of  bedrock  Article  III  constraints  in  cases  brought  by  States