Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
Texas v. United States is a landmark case concerning the balance of power between the executive branch and states, specifically regarding immigration policy.
Does the state of Texas have standing to challenge the DAPA program, and does DAPA exceed the executive branch's authority under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act?
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), significant changes to policy deemed as legislative rules require a notice-and-comment period. The Constitution mandates that the executive branch cannot unilaterally create laws or bypass Congress in implementing substantive policy changes.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Texas had standing to sue and that DAPA was subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, affirming the preliminary injunction against its implementation.
Texas v. United States is significant for law students as it underscores the bounds of executive power, especially in the context of immigration, which is often a contentious and politically charged area. The case illustrates the legal principles of standing, separation of powers, and administrative law, topics crucial for understanding the U.S. government's structure and function. It also highlights the judiciary's role in mediating disputes between state and federal authorities.