As We Said, Young Tipton Had, And Has, No Clue About The Law Of Standing, Or Federal Enforcement Priority Discretion... So Say The Supremes -- 8 to 1.

We long ago forcefully predicted this outcome.

And in truth, perhaps all Texas Judge Tipton sought to do. . . was to waste some three years of judicial time and resources, and millions of taxpayer dollars -- in partisan fashion. That he did.

But now, like Aileen Cannon, he will forever be just a widely mocked, bottom-rung federal trial court judge -- one who either never learned the rudiments of the federal law in law school, or one who decided to ignore those basic principles in service of MAGA Tangerine fever dreams. Here's the opinion finally bouncing him, and a bit -- from the excellent SCOTUSBlog.

. . .[T]he justices reached only the first question – whether Texas and Louisiana had standing to bring their lawsuit. In his 14-page opinion for the majority, Kavanaugh framed the dispute as an effort by the two states to obtain a court order that would require DHS to “alter its arrest policy so that the Department arrests more noncitizens.” But there is no history of courts “ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions,” Kavanaugh wrote. To the contrary, Kavanaugh emphasized, the court in 1973 held that a plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a state’s policy of not prosecuting some violations of child-support laws.

Moreover, Kavanaugh noted, the Constitution gives the executive branch broad discretion to enforce the laws. And in the immigration context, Kavanaugh observed, it has long been the case that the executive branch has not had sufficient resources to arrest or deport all of the noncitizens potentially covered by federal immigration laws. As a result, Kavanaugh wrote, the past five presidential administrations have had to make decisions about which immigration arrests to prioritize. “That complicated balancing process” by the executive branch, Kavanaugh reasoned, “leaves courts without meaningful standards for assessing the” executive branch’s decisions – which has in turn led the Supreme Court to conclude that “federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. . . .”

Kavanaugh also warned that recognizing what he characterized as the states’ “novel standing argument” to go forward could have serious implications in the future. “If the Court green-lighted this suit,” he cautioned, “we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path. . . .”

Now you know. . . what a waste of taxpayer dollars Tipton and his largely kangaroo Texas GOP court have turned out to be. Thanks, Donald!

नमस्ते