This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that the States lack Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement guidelines.
Background and question before the Court
Texas and Louisiana argue that § 1226(c) of Title 8 requires the Department of Homeland Security to arrest certain non‑citizens when they are released from state prison, and that the Department’s failure to do so imposes costs on the States.
The District Court found that the States would incur costs because of the Department’s guidelines and therefore had standing.
The Supreme Court’s central question was whether the States have Article III standing to maintain the suit.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
The United States argues that more than 11 million removable non‑citizens exist, DHS has limited resources, and enforcement priorities are necessary; the district court’s sweeping vacatur of the guidelines should be reversed.
The United States contends that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s use of the word “shall” does not create an unyielding mandate to apprehend every non‑citizen, and that the Court has repeatedly held that “shall” does not displace background principles of enforcement discretion.
Texas and Louisiana (Respondents)
Texas and Louisiana maintain that § 1226(c) of Title 8 requires the Department to arrest certain non‑citizens when they are released from state prison, and that the Department’s failure to comply imposes costs on the States.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas: Does provision 1252(f) also affect redressability for standing purposes?
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito: Is it the position of the United States that the states lacked standing in the Little Sisters of the Poor case because their expected additional healthcare spending was an indirect injury?
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh: Does this one transgress Article II, this statute, if the Chief Justice posits “shall” means “shall”?
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch: If we were to agree with you on 1252, do we have to address your standing arguments, let alone the merits?
According to Justice Barrett, justice Barrett: If a court lacks jurisdiction because it lacks the authority to issue a particular remedy, is that issue a matter of statutory interpretation to be treated as jurisdictional?
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: Does 1226(c) apply only once removal proceedings are pending?
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson: Would Congress have to be clear that 1226(c) creates a mandatory arrest requirement?
- [1] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 10
- [3] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 26
- [4] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 45
- [5] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 64
- [6] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 128
- [7] 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdf, p. 145
What the Court decided
Holding: The Court held that the States lack standing under Article III to maintain this suit.
Concurrence (Justice Gorsuch): The standing decision is narrow and simply maintains the longstanding jurisprudential status quo.
Why it matters
Justice Alito’s dissent highlights concerns that the majority’s approach may unduly restrict congressional intent and the ability of states to obtain redress for injuries caused by federal enforcement policies.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 67b850a010a861253a92-r1-df847a51db9cb0bf.pdfopinion
- 6e210b489a85ca313bf9-r1-9c736ac4497b8351.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.