Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

8 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Syllabus 

equal protection or its nondelegation claims.  And although the indi-
vidual  petitioners  join  Texas’s  nondelegation  challenge  to  §1915(c), 
they  raise  no  independent  arguments  about  why  they  would  have 
standing to bring this claim.  Pp. 32–34. 

994 F. 3d 249, affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded

in part.

 BARRETT,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., 
joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and 
JACKSON, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III.  KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion.  THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.