Page:United States v. Texas (2023).pdf/37

Rh

, with whom joins, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court that the States lack standing to challenge the Federal Government’s Guidelines for the enforcement of immigration law. But I reach that conclusion for a different reason: The States failed to show that the District Court could order effective relief. ably explains why that is so. (opinion concurring in judgment). And because redressability is an essential element of Article III standing, the District Court did not have jurisdiction.

The Court charts a different path. In its view, this case can be resolved based on what it calls the “fundamental Article III principle” that “ ‘a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’ ” (quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619 (1973)). In other words, the Court says, the States have not asserted a “ ‘judicially cognizable interest’ ” in this case. Respectfully, I would not take this route.

To begin with, I am skeptical that Linda R. S. suffices to resolve this dispute. First, the Court reads that decision