# Christopher Crane v. Jeh Johnson

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 7, 2015 · 783 F.3d 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9806724

## Case

- **Full name:** Christopher L. CRANE; David A. Engle; Anastasia Marie Carroll; Ricardo Diaz; Lorenzo Garza; Felix Luciano; Tre Rebstock; Fernando Silva; Samuel Martin; James D. Doebler; State of Mississippi, by and Through Governor Phil Bryant, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees v. Jeh Charles JOHNSON, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; John Sandweg, in His Official Capacity as Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Lori Scialabba, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 7, 2015
- **Citations:** 783 F.3d 244; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5573; 2015 WL 1566621
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Owen
- **Judges:** King, Davis, Owen
- **Nature of suit:** United States Civil
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9806724

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plaintiffs lacked standing where customs enforcement agents “assert[ed] that they have suffered an injury in fact because enforcing [an executive immigration program] would require them to violate their oaths to uphold the laws of the United States” because “the a…
- holding Mississippi lacked standing to challenge DACA because the state failed to “submit[] . . . evidence that any DACA eligible immigrants resided in the state” or “produce evidence of costs it would incur if some DACA-approved immigrants came to the state”
- holding that Mississippi did not have standing to challenge the federal government’s deferred-action policy because its injury was “purely speculative” and because it failed to “produce evidence of costs it would incur” because of the policy
- holding that the State of Mississippi had not “demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give [it] standing to maintain [its] suit” against the precursor DHS memorandum
- affirming district court’s holding that state-plaintiff’s “alleged fiscal injury was purely speculative because there was no concrete evidence that [state-plaintiff’s] costs had increased or will increase as a result of” the challenged statute and concluding that plaintiff-sta…

## Opinion text

PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in the court’s opinion and judgment. I write separately only to note that in order to establish standing with respect to some claims, it is not always necessary to present concrete evidence that an injury has occurred or will, beyond question, occur, as the Supreme Court implicitly recognized in Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 1 The State of Mississippi has not, however, made any arguments of this nature;
. 454 U.S. 151, 160-61 , 102 S.Ct. 205 , 70 L.Ed.2d 309 (1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9806724. Public record. Not legal advice.