United States v. Texas

PETITIONER: United States, et al.
RESPONDENT: Texas, et al.
LOCATION: Department of Homeland Security Headquarters

DOCKET NO.: 15-674
DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2016- )
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 579 US (2016)
GRANTED: Jan 19, 2016
ARGUED: Apr 18, 2016
DECIDED: Jun 23, 2016

ADVOCATES:
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. - for the petitioners
Erin E. Murphy - for the respondents, for the United States House of Representatives, as amicus curiae
Scott A. Keller - for the respondents
Thomas A. Saenz - for the intervenor-respondents

Facts of the case

In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, along with criteria for determining when prosecutors can choose not to enforce immigration laws under DACA. People who qualify for DACA may apply for work authorization. In 2014, DHS established a similar process for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as expanding DACA by making more people eligible. The new program was known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.

Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which clarifies the President's power. The district court held that the states had standing to file the suit and temporarily enjoined the implementation of DAPA because the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the states had standing as well as a substantial likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural claims.

Question

  1. Do states that provide subsidies to persons who are granted deferred action have standing to sue because the new guidelines will lead to more persons being eligible for deferred action?
  2. Is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program arbitrary and capricious?
  3. Did DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to go through the notice-and-comment procedure?
  4. Does DAPA violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution?

Media for United States v. Texas

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 18, 2016 in United States v. Texas

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 23, 2016 in United States v. Texas

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

In case number 13-1496, Dollar General Corporation versus Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and case 15-674 United States against Texas, the judgments are affirmed by an equally divided Court.

This Court will next sit Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

At that time, we will announce all remaining opinions ready during this term of the Court.