United States v. Texas
The Court held that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge a Biden administration immigration policy that prioritized apprehending and deporting suspected terrorists, non-citizens who committed crimes, and those recently caught at the border.· AI-written
599 U.S. 670 · No. 22-58 · 2022 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 23, 2023 · argued Nov 29, 2022
Judicial power · Standing to sue: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Brett Kavanaugh
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Reversed. United States won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Texas and Louisiana did not have Article III standing to challenge a Biden administration policy prioritizing "the apprehension and deportation of three specific groups of people: suspected terrorists, non-citizens who have committed crimes, and those caught recently at the border." In 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act which "authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100".
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2022 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Brett KavanaughWrote the majority opinion
Amy BarrettWrote a concurrence
Neil GorsuchWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- TexasState (Texas)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 2023DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: reversed. United States won.
- Nov 29, 2022ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Department of Education v. Brown600 U.S. 551Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 551Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- California v. Texas141 S. Ct. 2104Jun 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2104Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Trump v. New York141 S. Ct. 530Dec 18, 2020 · 141 S. Ct. 530Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates137 S. Ct. 1645Jun 5, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1645Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., et al.509 U.S. 43Jun 18, 1993 · 509 U.S. 43Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Chase National Bank of New York, Trustee, et al.352 U.S. 36Nov 19, 1956 · 352 U.S. 36Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.