United States v. Texas

Decision Date23 June 2016
Docket NumberNo. 15–674,15–674
Citation195 L.Ed.2d 638,136 S.Ct. 2271 (Mem)
Parties UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners v. TEXAS, et al.
CourtU.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 IntervenorsRespondents 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 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, Principal Deputy 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 cases
  • Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 5, 2018
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • January 27, 2021
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 17, 2017
    ..." 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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • July 13, 2020
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
  • Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...(S.D. Tex.) (enjoining Obama Administration immigration policy), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (390.) See, e.g., Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21-CV-oo778, 2021 WL 2446010, at *22 (W.D. La. June 15, 2021) (issuing a nationwide inj......
  • Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-6, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...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 (......
  • SUPREME STALEMATES: CHALICES, JACK-O'-LANTERNS, AND OTHER STATE HIGH COURT TIEBREAKERS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...PM), https://time.com/4731066/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-record-vacancy [https://perma.cc/XAH6-5CYX]. (100) See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam) (mem.); Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) (per curiam) (mem.); Hawkins v. Cmty. Bank, 136 S. Ct.......
  • ADMINISTRATIVE SABOTAGE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...(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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT