United States v. Texas
| Decision Date | 23 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–674,15–674 |
| Citation | United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638(Mem) (2016) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners v. TEXAS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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–RespondentsJane 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 Louisiana, Paul R. LePage, Governor of Maine, Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Drew Snyder, Timothy C. Fox, Attorney General of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General of Nebraska, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of Nevada, Robert C. Stephens, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota, Michael DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, Eric E. Murphy, Co-counsel for the, State of Ohio, E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General of South Dakota, Herbert Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter of Tennessee, Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia, Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General of Wisconsin.
Stevan E. Bunnell, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, PrincipalDeputy Assistant, Attorney General, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Douglas N. Letter, Scott R. McIntosh, Jeffrey Clair, William E. Havemann, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioners.
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, Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Jeffrey C. Mateer, First Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, J. Campbell Barker, Deputy Solicitor General, Ari Cuenin, Alex Potapov, Assistant...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). In June 2016, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the decision. See United States v. Texas , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 2272, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). In addition to finding DAPA and the expansions of DACA unlawful, the judicial decisions throughout the DA......
-
Earl v. Boeing Co.
... ... The BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-507 United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division. Signed January 27, 2021 515 F.Supp.3d 597 ... ...
-
Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
..." which "extends across the country" (quoting U.S. Const. art. III § 1 )), aff'd by an equally divided court , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). Injunctive relief "should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.......
-
Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
...to issue nationwide injunctions") (quoting U.S. Const. art. III § 1 ), aff'd by an equally divided court , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). That discretion must be balanced against the tenet that a court ordinarily should craft a remedy that is "no more burdensome to ......
-
State Attorneys General and the Upcoming Biden Administration
...v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 669-70 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134, 171-86 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 [5] Texas v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 3d 810, 815–16, 836 (N.D. Tex. 2016). [6] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/state-atto......
-
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
...591, 677-78 (S.D. Tex.) (enjoining parts of DACA and DAPA), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134, 146 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016) (mem.) (per curiam); Sequoia Forestkeeper v. Tidwell, 847 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1253 (E.D. Cal. (9) See, e.g., Citizens for Bette......
-
Abusing the Judicial Power: a Geographic Approach to Address Nationwide Injunctions and State Standing
...of Labor v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1153 (5th Cir. 1984)).55. Id. at 188. 56. See id. at 187-88.57. United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016).58. Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017); Wolf, supra note 38; Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 ......
-
Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
...See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 604 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). 168. See, e.g., Hawaii v. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1160 (D. Haw.), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 878 F.3d 662 (......
-
ADMINISTRATIVE SABOTAGE.
...(113.) Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591,614 (S.D. Tex.), affd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), affd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (114.) Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief at 3, Texas, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (No. 14cv- 00254) (emphasis omitted). (115.) Blac......