green
Positive treatment
Hot · 40 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 1×
34.0 score
“a plaintiff does not lose standing to challenge an otherwise injurious action simply because he may also derive some benefit from it. our standing analysis is not an accounting exercise ....”
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
a plaintiff does not lose standing to challenge an otherwise injurious action simply because he may also derive some benefit from it. our standing analysis is not an accounting exercise ....
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Texas
Lazarus, The Rule of Five: Making Climate History at the Supreme Court 1 (2020).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Texas
Lazarus, The Rule of Five: Making Climate History at the Supreme Court 1 (2020).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., Emma Goldman Clinic, and Jill Meadows v. Kim Reynolds, ex rel. State of Iowa, and Iowa Board of Medicine
We believe the State cannot prevail for two reasons: first, there are numerous discretionary reasons not to grant the writ; second, even if we granted the writ, the district court acted neither illegally nor outside its jurisdiction when it concluded the injunction remains valid under existing law. 4The United States Supreme Court, when evenly divided after Justice Scalia’s death, simply entered an order stating, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” See, e.g., United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547, 548 (2016) (per curiam); Dollar Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillip Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 , 155–56 & n.59 (5th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases and distinguishing Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2002), in which the Fifth Circuit had declined to find taxpayer standing where it did not appear that the taxpayers actually had to pay for the program at issue, and noting that in Henderson, “the extra fees paid by drivers who purchased the [challenged license] plates could have covered the associated expenses”; since “[t]he costs and benefits arose out of the same transaction, . . . the plaintiffs had not demonstrated injury�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Texas v. United States
Ctr., 711 F.2d 38, 39 (5th Cir. 1983). 246 Campaign for S. Equality v. Bryant, 773 F.3d 55, 57 (5th Cir. 2014). 247 United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547, 548 (2016) (per curiam). 45 Case: 21-40680 Document: 00516498357 Page: 46 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 No. 21-40680 adoption. 248 Given the “uncertainty of final disposition” 249 and the “inevitable disruption that would arise from a lack of continuity and stability,” 250 we preserve the stay as to existing recipients. * * * The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillip Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc.
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 , 155–56 & n.59 (5th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases and distinguishing Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2002), in which the Fifth Circuit had declined to find taxpayer standing where it did not appear that the taxpayers actually had to pay for the program at issue, and noting that in Henderson, “the extra fees paid by drivers who purchased the [challenged license] plates could have covered the associated expenses”; since “[t]he costs and benefits arose out of the same transaction, . . . the plaintiffs had not demonstrated injury�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC.
United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016). 2 In finding DAPA subject to review under the APA, the Fifth Circuit held that deferred action “is much more than nonenforcement.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 166 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Janice Brewer
It’s a theory that puts us squarely at odds with the Fifth Circuit, which held recently that “the INA flatly does not permit the [executive] reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 184 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Louisiana v. DOE
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by equally divided Court, 579 U.S. 547 (2016) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Mississippi v. Becerra
See Texas v. United States (DAPA), 809 F.3d 134, 150 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally-divided vote, 579 U.S. 547 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
Flt Training Intl v. FAA
See Texas v. U.S., 809 F.3d 134, 171, 176 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 577 U.S. 1101 (2016), aff’d by an equally divided court, 579 U.S. 547 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Texas v. United States of America
See Transcript of Oral Argument at 24, Texas J, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (No. 15-674) (“[T]he briefs go on for pages to the effect that the President has admitted a certain number of people and then Congress approves it.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brackeen v. Haaland
See id. at 151–54 (holding federal statute may afford states standing to vindicate injury to their “quasi- sovereign” interests) (citing Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 , 518–20 (2007)); Texas, 945 F.3d at 384 (states have standing to challenge statute infringing sovereign interest in “applying their own laws and policies”); see also 5 U.S.C. § 702 (affording right of judicial review to persons “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action”). 11 B.
cited
Cited "see"
MD Anderson v. HHS
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 , 152 n.34 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831 ), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Gulf Fishermens Association v. National Mar
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 186 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Washington v. US Department of Homeland Security
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 151 (5th Cir. 2015), 9 aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States
See Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 159 (5th Cir. 2015) ("For Texas to incur injury, DAPA beneficiaries would have to apply for driver's licenses as a consequence of DHS's action, and it is apparent that many would do so."), aff'd by an equally divided court , United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (Mem.) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Probodanu v. Sessions
See Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (upholding district court's nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of DAPA Memo), aff'd , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Uc Regents v. Usdhs
See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015); Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
See United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) ; Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Texas v. United States , 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Texas v. United States
See Transcript of Oral Argument at 24, United States v. Texas , 136 S.Ct. 2271 (No. 15-674) (Justice Anthony Kennedy: "[T]he briefs go on for pages to the effect that the President has admitted a certain number of people and then Congress approves it.
discussed
Cited "see"
Trustees of Princeton University v. United States of America
(2×)
See id. at 217–18 (citing United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (mem)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump
(2×)
See id. at 217-18 (citing United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (mem) ).
cited
Cited "see"
Trustees of Princeton University v. United States of America
See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (mem).
cited
Cited "see"
Nat'l Ass'n v. Trump
See United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (mem).
discussed
Cited "see"
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Trump
See --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). 8 And finally, it may be the case that Johnson is best understood as a political question case, rather than one about the Take Care Clause in particular.
cited
Cited "see"
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump
See 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016).8 And finally, it may be the case that Johnson is best understood as a political question case, rather than one about the Take Care Clause in particular.
discussed
Cited "see"
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
(2×)
See United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 2272, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. United States District Court
(2×)
See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015); Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
William Groth v. Mike Pence, as Governor of the State of Indiana
(2×)
See United States v. Texas, — U.S.—, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
Movimiento Democracia, Inc. v. Johnson
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir.2015), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 579 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 , 2016 WL 3434401 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(2×)
See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 579 U.S. --, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Texas v. Mayorkas
(2×)
See, e.g., Texas v. United States (“DAPA”), 809 F.3d 134, 155 (5th Cir. 2015) (“DAPA would enable at least 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas . . .”), as revised, (Nov. 25, 2015), aff’d by equally divided court, United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547 , 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016); Texas v. United States (“DACA”), 50 F.4th 498 , 508–09, 518 (5th Cir. 2022) (stating that “about 1.5 million aliens were covered by the DACA Memorandum” and “no one disputes that some” of them are in Texas); Texas v. Biden (“MPP I”), 10 F.4th 538 , 547 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Texas Medical Association v. HHS
(2×)
Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 753 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 179, 186 (5th Cir. 2015) (“DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan” because, “[i]n specific and detailed provisions,” Congress has already “expressly and carefully provide[d] legal designations allowing defined classes of aliens to be lawfully present[.]”), aff’d by an equally divided court, 579 U.S. 547 , 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). 16 Moreover, when Congress charges a decisionmaker with considering several factors without assigning them a procedural order…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vullo v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Mellon , 262 U.S. at 480 , 43 S.Ct. 597 ; see also Texas v. United States , 787 F.3d 733 , 748 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding that Texas had standing to challenge agency action in part because of the costs associated with providing additional driver's licenses), affirmed by an equally divided court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Maryland v. United States
See, e.g. , Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 152-55 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pennsylvania v. Trump
They are "entitled to special solicitude in [the] standing analysis" if they have: (1) a procedural right that authorizes them to challenge the conduct at issue; and, (2) a "stake in protecting [their] quasi-sovereign interests." Id. at 520 , 127 S.Ct. 1438 ; see also Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 151 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided Court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
California v. Health & Human Servs.
See California , 911 F.3d at 573 ; see also Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 155 (5th Cir. 2015) (State of Texas had standing to mount APA challenge to Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program because Texas would "incur significant costs in issuing driver's licenses to [program] beneficiaries"), aff'd by equally divided Court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 2272, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Twp. of Bordentown v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
See, e.g. , Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 160 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that "the Supreme Court [has] held that an injury [is] not fairly traceable" to an action where the "independent act of a third party was a necessary condition of the harm's occurrence, and it was uncertain whether the third party would take the required step"), aff'd by an equally divided court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Doe v. Trump
See, e.g. , Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 171-78 (5th Cir. 2015) (as revised), aff'd by an equally divided court , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (holding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim that notice and comment rulemaking required for immigration policy granting deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants); Zhang v. Slattery , 55 F.3d 732 , 744-47 (2d Cir. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds , 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(42) (finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alford v. Hernandez
"If DHS, a federal executive agency, had the power to create a new immigration status [through DACA] and confer it upon any individuals it desired, this would be an unconstitutional end-run around the principle of separation of powers.") (citation omitted); see also Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 , 146, 176-177 (VI) (B), 181-182 (VII) (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd, United States v. Texas , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (per curiam) (The DHS adopted a policy related to DACA, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAPA") program, wi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
C. Dean Alford v. Rigoberto Rivera Hernandez
“If DHS, a federal executive agency, had the power to create a new immigration status [through DACA] and confer it upon any individuals it desired, this would be an unconstitutional end-run around the principle of separation of powers.”) (citation omitted) ; see also Texas v. United States, 809 F3d 134, 146, 176-177 (VI) (B), 181-182 (VII) (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d, United States v. Texas, ___ U. S. ___ ( 136 SCt 2271 , 195 LE2d 638) (2016) (per curiam) (The DHS adopted a policy related to DACA, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of El Cenizo v. Texas
For instance, in Crane , an ICE officer who believed that the exercise of discretion permitted under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated his oath to uphold the laws of the United States had not shown a sufficient injury to establish his standing when he showed that, after refusing to follow a superior’s instruction to -defer action, he received “a non-diseiplinary letter admonishing him for refusing to follow his supervisor’s instruction.” Crane, 783 F.3d at 254 (noting that- “Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that any agent has been sanctioned or is…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
1000 Friends of Wisconsin Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation
(2×)
This matters be- cause “States are not normal litigants for the purposes of in- voking federal jurisdiction”; rather, they are “entitled to a special solicitude in … standing analysis.” Massachusetts, 549 Nos. 16-2321 & 16-2586 15 U.S. at 518, 520; see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 154 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016); Wyoming ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aziz v. Trump
See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 183 , 120 S.Ct. 693 (holding that a purely aesthetic injury can confer Article III standing); see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 155 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that subsidies used to offset the cost of printing additional driver’s licenses gave Texas standing to challenge the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program), aff'd by an equally divided Court, United States v. Texas, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nevada v. United States Department of Labor
See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2271 , 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (enjoining the Department from applying a new rule pending a full determination of the matter on the merits).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Moses Martinez
Cir. 2015) (explaining history of DACA); Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2014) (same); see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 146-47 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d, United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam) (providing brief history of DACA in case involving 2014 expansion of DACA and another federal directive, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”)); Crane v. Napolitano, 920 F. Supp. 2d 724, 729-30 (N.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
TEXAS
v.
TEXAS
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 23, 2016.
Adam P. KohSweeney, Gabriel Markoff, Ward A. Penfold, Samuel Wilson, Mallory Jensen, Juan Camilo Méndez, Remi Moncel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Darcy M. Meals, Jeremy R. Girton, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal, Defense and Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX, Linda J. Smith, DLA Piper LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Intervenors-Respondents Jane Does., Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Charles E. Roy, First Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, J. Campbell Barker, Deputy Solicitor General, Ari Cuenin, Alex Potapov, Assistant Solicitors General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Luther Strange, Attorney General, of Alabama, Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas, Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General of Georgia, Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, Cally Younger, Joseph C. Chapelle, Peter J. Rusthoven, Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, James D. \Buddy\" Caldwell
Attorney General of Nevada | Attorney General of Louisiana
Citer courts: S.D. Illinois (1)
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.