Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 17

14 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

only  that  the  federal  courts  are  not  the  proper  forum  to 
resolve this dispute.

On that point, even though the federal courts lack Article
III jurisdiction over this suit, other forums remain open for 
examining  the  Executive  Branch’s  arrest  policies.    For 
example,  Congress  possesses  an  array  of  tools  to  analyze 
and influence those policies—oversight, appropriations, the 
legislative  process,  and  Senate  confirmations,  to  name  a 
few.  Cf. Raines, 521 U. S., at 829; Lincoln, 508 U. S., at 193. 
And through elections, American voters can both influence 
Executive  Branch  policies  and  hold  elected  officials  to 
account for enforcement decisions.  In any event, those are 
political checks for the political process.  We do not opine on 
whether any such actions are appropriate in this instance. 
The Court’s standing decision today is narrow and simply
maintains the longstanding jurisprudential status quo.  See 
Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 619.  The Court’s decision does not 
alter  the  balance  of  powers  between  Congress  and  the 
Executive,  or  change    the  Federal  Judiciary’s  traditional 
role in separation of powers cases. 

* 

* 

* 

In  sum,  the  States  have  brought  an  extraordinarily 
unusual  lawsuit.    They  want  a  federal  court  to  order  the
Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make 
more  arrests.  Federal  courts  have  not  traditionally
entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no 
precedent for a lawsuit like this.  The States lack Article III 
standing  because  this  Court’s  precedents  and  the 
“historical  experience”  preclude  the  States’  “attempt  to 
litigate this dispute at this time and in this form.”  Raines, 
521 U. S., at 829.  And because the States lack Article III 
standing, the District Court did not have jurisdiction.  We 
reverse the judgment of the District Court. 

It is so ordered.