In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a memorandum issued by President Obama in 2014 was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and therefore did not have legal effect. The memorandum had sought to provide certain protections from deportation for undocumented immigrants who were parents of U.S.-born children or lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The court found that because Congress had declined to pass legislation providing such protection, it was up to Congress—not the executive branch—to decide whether those individuals should be protected from removal proceedings. In addition, the court determined that states could bring suit against federal agencies when they felt their interests were being harmed by agency action without congressional authorization; this ruling allowed Texas and 25 other states to challenge President Obama's immigration policy as unconstitutional on grounds that it exceeded his authority under Article II of the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Texas, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). She argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize the plain language of the INA, which clearly states that the federal government has the authority to grant deferred action to certain classes of individuals. She further argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the INA's "anti-commandeering" principle, which prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's ability to enforce its laws. She argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize that the INA does not require states to enforce federal immigration laws, and that the federal government has the authority to grant deferred action to certain classes of individuals. Finally, she argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the INA's "anti-discrimination" principle, which prohibits states from discriminating against individuals based on their immigration status. She argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize that the INA does not require states to discriminate against individuals based on their immigration status, and that the federal government has the authority to grant deferred action to certain classes of individuals.