Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

standing to bring this suit.1 

Nevertheless,  the  United  States  (the  defendant  in  this
case) has urged us to put this framework aside and adopt a
striking new rule.  At argument, the Solicitor General was 
asked whether it is the position of the United States that 
the  Constitution  does  not  allow  any  party  to  challenge  a 
President’s  decision  not  to  enforce  laws  he  does  not  like. 
What would happen, the Solicitor General was asked, if a
President  chose  not  to  enforce  the  environmental  laws  or 
the  labor  laws?  Would  the  Constitution  bar  an  injured 
party from bringing suit?  She responded: 

“That’s correct under this Court’s precedent, but the 
framers intended political checks in that circumstance.
You know, if—if an administration did something that 
extreme and said we’re just not going to enforce the law
at all, then the President would be held to account by 
the  voters,  and  Congress  has  tools  at  its  disposal  as 
well.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 50 (emphasis added). 

Thus,  according  to  the  United  States,  even  if  a  party
clearly meets our three-part test for Article III standing, the 
Constitution bars that party from challenging a President’s 
decision not to enforce the law.  Congress may wield what 
the  Solicitor  General  described  as  “political  . . .  tools”— 
which presumably means such things as withholding funds, 
refusing  to  confirm  Presidential  nominees,  and  impeach-
ment and removal—but otherwise Congress and the Amer-
ican people must simply wait until the President’s term in 
office expires.

The Court—at least for now—does not fully embrace this 

—————— 

1 In a case with multiple plaintiffs, Article III permits us to reach the
merits  if  any  plaintiff  has  standing.   Rumsfeld v.  Forum  for  Academic 
and  Institutional  Rights,  Inc.,  547  U. S.  47,  52,  n. 2  (2006).    Because 
Texas clearly meets our test for Article III standing, it is not necessary 
to consider whether the other plaintiff, the State of Louisiana, also sat-
isfies that test.