United States v. Texas (2023)

Last updated

United States v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 29, 2022
Decided June 23, 2023
Full case nameUnited States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Docket no. 22-58
Citations599 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Questions presented
(1) Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; and
(2) Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C.   § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C.   § 1231(a) , or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and
(3) Whether 8 U.S.C.   § 1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" the Guidelines under 5 U.S.C.   § 706(2) .
Holding
Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgment), joined by Thomas, Barrett
ConcurrenceBarrett (in judgment), joined by Gorsuch
DissentAlito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. III

United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to federal immigration law.

Contents

Background

Many of the Biden administration's immigration policies have been subject to protracted litigation. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, the administration directed the U.S. immigration agency, ICE, to stop all deportations except those that posed a threat to "national security, public safety, and border security". The act was widely expected to reduce the number of deportations by the agency. Texas filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas soon after, and Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a temporary restraining order. The state soon dismissed the lawsuit, but filed a new suit with Louisiana in April 2021 after the administration issued modified interim guidance in February. Judge Tipton then issued a preliminary injunction in August 2021. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which stayed the injunction in part in September. In November, the 5th Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated the panel opinion. That appeal became moot as the administration had issued a final guidance document in September. [1]

The court held a bench trial in February 2022 about the legality of the final guidance. On June 10, 2022, the court held the final guidance violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and vacated it. On July 6, 2022, a panel of the Fifth Circuit denied a stay pending appeal, holding the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Garland v. Gonzalez did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over the suit. [2]

Arizona, Montana, and Ohio separately challenged the permanent guidance in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On March 22, 2022, Judge Michael J. Newman issued a preliminary injunction against the guidance, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed on April 12, 2022, and reversed on July 5, 2022.

Supreme Court

After the 5th Circuit denied a stay pending appeal, the federal government sought a stay from the Supreme Court on July 8, 2022. On July 21, 2022, the court denied the application for stay in a 5–4 vote, but granted certiorari before judgment and set the case for argument in the December sitting. [2] Oral arguments were held on November 29, 2022. On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the district court in an 8–1 decision. [3]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michelle Friedland</span> American judge (born 1972)

Michelle Taryn Friedland is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>De Leon v. Perry</i>

De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing, which was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing on October 6, 2014, after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals in other marriage equality cases, and the motion was granted on October 7, 2014, setting a hearing for November 2014. However, on October 27, 2014, the Fifth Circuit set oral arguments for January 9, 2015.

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terry A. Doughty</span> American federal judge (born 1959)

Terry Alvin Doughty is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty previously served as a judge in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

<i>Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</i> 2020 United States Supreme Court case

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drew B. Tipton</span> American judge (born 1967)

Drew Barnett Tipton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Remain in Mexico is a United States immigration policy originally implemented in January 2019 under the administration of President Donald Trump, affecting immigration across the border with Mexico. Administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it requires migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico until their US immigration court date.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13990</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Joe Biden

Executive Order 13990, officially titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis is an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, which implements various environmental policies of his administration including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and temporarily prohibiting drilling in the arctic refuge.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. Opponents stated that the Act went against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which, prior to its overturn in 2022, banned states from prohibiting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. ___ (2023), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the forgiveness of federal student loans by the Biden administration in 2022, challenged by multiple states. The Supreme Court's ruling was issued on June 30, 2023, ruling 6–3 that the Secretary of Education did not have the power to waive student loans under the HEROES Act.

References

  1. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf
  2. 1 2 Howe, Amy (July 21, 2022). "Divided court declines to reinstate Biden's immigration guidelines, sets case for argument this fall". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 30, 2022.
  3. Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Revives Biden Immigration Guidelines". The New York Times. The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 28, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.