Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

EQUATING IMMIGRANTS TO GREENHOUSE GASES: IS THIS A VALID BASIS FOR STANDING TO SUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Cyrus D. Mehta writes: "It has lately become fashionable for states that oppose President Obama’s immigration executive actions to sue in federal court on grounds that they are unconstitutional.  But in order to get heard in court, a state must demonstrate standing. In the Texas v. United States litigation challenging President Obama’s November 2014 Deferred Action for Parent Accountability Program (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) programs, plaintiff states led by Texas successfully invoked standing by equating immigrants to noxious air pollutants that cause greenhouse gases. While greenhouse gases can only cause harm, immigrants, legal or not, are more likely to confer benefits than harm. Is it appropriate for a judge to give standing to a state opposing federal immigration policy based on the sort of harm that pollutants would cause it?  "