Volume 599 U. S. Part 1 Pages 670–735

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT June 23, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 670 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

UNITED STATES et al. v. TEXAS et al.

certiorari before judgment to the united states court of appeals for the fth circuit No. 22–58. Argued November 29, 2022—Decided June 23, 2023 In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated new immigration-enforcement guidelines (Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law) that prioritize the arrest and removal from the United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently, for example. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guidelines contravene two federal statutes that they read to require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U. S. C. § 1226(c)) or entry of a fnal order of removal (§ 1231(a)(2)). The District Court found that the States would incur costs due to the Executive's failure to comply with those alleged statutory mandates, and that the States had standing to sue based on those costs. On the merits, the District Court found the Guidelines unlawful and vacated them. The Fifth Circuit de- Page Proof Pending Publication clined to stay the District Court's judgment, and this Court granted certiorari before judgment. Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. Pp. 676–686. (a) Under Article III, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. This bedrock constitutional requirement has its roots in the separation of powers. So the threshold question here is whether the States have standing to maintain this suit. Based on this Court's precedents and longstanding historical practice, the answer is no. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The District Court found that the States would incur additional costs due to the challenged arrest policy. And monetary costs are an injury. But this Court has stressed that the alleged injury must also “be legally and judicially cog- nizable.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819. That requires that the dispute is “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Ibid. Here, the States cite no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threat- ened with prosecution.” See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619. The Linda R. S. Article III standing principle remains the law Cite as: 599 U. S. 670 (2023) 671

Syllabus

today, and the States have pointed to no case or historical practice hold- ing otherwise. Pp. 675–678. (b) There are good reasons why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. For one, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual's liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive's Article II a