Abstract
States historically challenge federal executive policy through litigation. One recent example is Texas’ challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) policy for the second time in two years. The validity of DACA was challenged in the Fifth Circuit due to immigration concerns by Texas, where the court ultimately held Texas had Article III standing to sue. However other courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, have begun closing the door on plaintiffs that demonstrate only broad injuries related to government regulations and policies. The June 2024 Supreme Court ruling in FDA v. Alliance may open the door for the Court to find that Texas does not have standing to challenge the second iteration of DACA if the decision of the Fifth Circuit is appealed.
This Comment examines Article III standing requirements as applied by the Supreme Court up to and including Alliance, the history of the second DACA suit out of Texas and the resulting Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Texas v. United States. The Comment argues that, despite the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the Supreme Court may find that Texas does not have standing to sue. The Comment focuses specifically on the injury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing as they apply to a potential appeal of Texas v. United States given the ruling in Alliance.
Recommended Citation
Madeline Hutchison,
Dreamers and the FDA: Article III Standing in Immigration Cases after FDA v. Alliance,
104 Neb. L. Rev. 125
(2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol104/iss1/8