Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
Page Number: 7

2 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

to do so.  Texas can now immediately enforce its own law
imposing criminal liability on thousands of noncitizens and 
requiring  their  removal  to  Mexico.  This  law  will  disrupt
sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of indi-
viduals fleeing persecution, hamper active federal enforce-
ment efforts, undermine federal agencies’ ability to detect 
and monitor imminent security threats, and deter nonciti-
zens from reporting abuse or trafficking.

The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the
longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,
when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is 
likely unconstitutional.  This law implicates serious issues 
that  are  subject  to  ongoing  political  debate,  and  Texas’s 
novel scheme requires careful and reasoned consideration 
in the courts to determine which provisions may be uncon-
stitutional.  Although the Court today expresses no view on
whether Texas’s law is constitutional, and instead defers to 
a lower court’s management of its docket, the Court of Ap-
peals abused its discretion by entering an unreasoned and 
indefinite administrative stay that altered the status quo. 
This Court stands idle.  Because I cannot, I dissent. 

I 
A 
“The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  broad,  un-
doubted power over the subject of immigration and the sta-
tus  of  [noncitizens].”  Arizona  v.  United  States,  567  U. S. 
387, 394 (2012).  That power is near exclusive when it comes 
to  the  admission  and  removal  of  noncitizens,  and  it  pre-
cludes States from regulating entry and removal in a patch-
work  across  the  Nation.  “It  is  fundamental  that  foreign 
countries concerned about the status, safety, and security
of their nationals in the United States must be able to con-
fer and communicate on this subject with one national sov-
ereign, not the 50 separate States.”  Id., at 395.  Congress