Opinion ID: 2791770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mississippi’s Standing

Text: Plaintiffs-Appellants first challenge the district court’s determination that Mississippi’s alleged injury in fact is too speculative to support standing. Specifically, Mississippi argues that its fiscal injury is already manifest because a 2006 study shows that the illegal aliens of Mississippi cost the state more than $25 million per year. Since DACA authorizes a certain class of those illegal aliens to remain in the state, Mississippi argues that the program necessarily costs the state money. In response, DHS asserts two arguments. First, that Mississippi has failed to allege facts showing that the cost to the state will increase as a result of DACA. All that Mississippi can point to, according to DHS, is that illegal immigration is costing the state money, not that DACA is costing the state money. It could be that the reallocation of DHS’s assets is resulting in the removal of immigrants that impose a greater financial burden on the state. If this is true, the net effect would be a reduction in the fiscal burden on the state. 29 Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S. Ct. at 2341 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Clapper, 133 S. Ct. at 1147 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565, n. 2 (internal quotation 30 marks omitted)). Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990) (internal quotation 31 marks omitted)) (emphasis in original). See also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565 n. 2. 10 Case: 14-10049 Document: 00512995490 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 No. 14-10049 Second, DHS argues that a favorable ruling would not necessarily redress Mississippi’s alleged injury. It is uncontested that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) — if read as Plaintiffs claim — only compels the commencement of removal proceedings. DHS argues that even if we were to read the statute that way, DHS unquestionably has the discretion to terminate removal proceedings after their initiation and release the immigrant back into Mississippi. The district court held that Mississippi’s alleged fiscal injury was purely speculative because there was no concrete evidence that Mississippi’s costs had increased or will increase as a result of DACA. Based on the record before the district court 32, we agree. Mississippi submitted no evidence that any DACA eligible immigrants resided in the state. Nor did Mississippi produce evidence of costs it would incur if some DACA-approved immigrants came to the state. Instead, Mississippi only asserts (based on the 2006 study) that DACA will cost the state money because the state provides social benefits to illegal immigrants. Article III standing, however, mandates that Mississippi show a “concrete and particularized” injury that is “fairly traceable” to DACA. To do that, Mississippi was required to demonstrate that the state will incur costs because of the DACA program. 33 Because Mississippi’s claim of injury is not supported by any facts, we agree with the district court that Mississippi’s injury is purely speculative. Mississippi has failed to carry its burden to 32 Mississippi has referred to additional evidence it apparently developed while the case was on appeal that it did not present to the district court. We may not consider this evidence. 33 Cf., Wyoming v. United States DOI, 674 F.3d 1220, 1232 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Petitioners provide no evidence of the general fund actually decreasing, nor have they shown the general fund revenues will decrease in the future . . . . Importantly, Petitioners have not shown the 2009 rules have or will result in lost revenue.”). 11 Case: 14-10049 Document: 00512995490 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 No. 14-10049 establish standing. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mississippi’s suit for lack of standing. 34