3 ms·
For the Con Law/Fed Courts/Civ Pro scholars out there: is there precedent for standing here with a state suing over immigration?
by piker 10y ago
For the Con Law/Fed Courts/Civ Pro scholars out there: is there precedent for standing here with a state suing over immigration?
- ChemicalWarfare 10y agoImmigration and border protection fall under the fed's jurisdiction. Which is why Obama sued Arizona when their governor signed the law to essentially enforce the existing federal laws lol.
- geofft 10y agoIANAL, but the current United States v. Texas case seems to imply yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas tl;dr if I'm reading right: Texas and 26 other states sued the federal government over Obama's DAPA executive order. The district court said Texas had standing and issued a preliminary injunction against DAPA. The court of appeals also said Texas had standing and affirmed the injunction, and SCOTUS 4-4 did not reverse them. (Alas, poor Merrick!)
- rayiner 10y agoStates get "special solicitude" in the standing analysis when they sue over federal policies that affect their interests. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that idea in Mass. v. EPA, which held states had standing to challenge EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses.