Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

1 

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–58 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2023] 

JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE BARRETT join, concurring in the judgment. 

The Court holds that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III 
standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Secu-
rity’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration
Law.  I agree.  But respectfully, I diagnose the jurisdictional
defect differently.  The problem here is redressability. 

I 
Article III vests federal courts with the power to decide
“Cases” and “Controversies.”  Standing doctrine honors the 
limitations inherent in this assignment by ensuring judges
attend to actual harms rather than abstract grievances.  “If 
individuals and groups could invoke the authority of a fed-
eral  court  to  forbid  what  they  dislike  for  no  more  reason 
than they dislike it, we would risk exceeding the judiciary’s
limited  constitutional  mandate  and  infringing  on  powers
committed to other branches of government.”  American Le-
gion v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) 
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 3). 

To establish standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff 
must show that it has suffered a concrete and particular-
ized injury, one that is both traceable to the defendant and 
redressable  by  a  court  order.  See  Lujan  v.  Defenders  of 
Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992).  If a plaintiff fails