This ruling is correct.
But first some history.
When the original Constitution, The Articles of Confederation was shit canned in favor of the replacement constitution ratified on May 29, 1790, there was no provision for a “supreme court” in the document as the “elites” pushing the new constitution knew if a provision for a federal court which could overrule the individual sovereign state courts, knew the souls of the many sovereign states or countries if you will, would never had ratified the document.
The “elites’ got the camel’s nose under the tent then used the new document to force the whole camel of a federal “supreme court” on the many individual sovereign states, or countries if you will.
In 1861 the closet homosexual atheist marxist yankee Lincoln
killed the American Revolutionaries Volunteer Union, replacing it with a Soviet Styled Mandatory Military Dictatorship thinly disguised as a constitutional republic.
Using terrorism against women, children and old men, Lincoln’s terrorist
Lincoln’s Communist Terrorist
succeeded in using terrorism against civilians to subdue the military of the Confederate States of America after which the USA illegally occupied the counties which made up the Confederate States of America
The USA placed illegal military occupation dictatorship administrations called “state governments” in place.
In 1871 because the closet homosexual atheist war criminal yankee Lincoln had bankrupted the USA making war on Americans, the USA incorporated USA/Washington DC under British Empire Law.
A corporation can not be a republic, and a republic can not be a corporation.
The illegal occupation military dictatorships called “state governments” by the USA corporation, are sub corporations of the USA/DC international for profit corporation.
As sub corporations of the parent USA/DC corporation, they do not have the legal right to question a parent corporation rule.
Of course the 158 year illegal war crime occupation of both Louisiana and the Republic of Texas, is illegal without legal standing to make rules for the living souls of the illegally militarily in a 158 long and continuing war crime, occupied countries of Louisiana and the Republic of Texas.
Legal Axiom:
The fruit of the poison tree is poison”.
The occupying sub corporations, ‘THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’ and ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS’ can NEVER be made non poison or become legal governments of these two illegally occupied countries.
When the USA empire goes teats up as it is well on it’s way of doing, and the souls of these two counties take their countries back from the illegal sub corporations of the USA/DC corporation, all illegal invaders holding Washington DC citizenship documents, can be bused to Washington DC as their Washington DC citizenship documents will give them no legal standing to remain in these two countries once the blood sucking vampire sub corporations of the USA/DC corporation has had their fangs extracted from the necks and wallets of the souls who’s ancestry which goes to 1865 and back before the illegal subjugation of these countries legal governments.
But the High court of the USA/DC corporation is correct that their Sub corporations has no right to appeal rulings of the parent corporation.
The Ole Dog!
In a major victory for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Texas and Louisiana do not have a legal right, known as standing, to challenge a Biden administration policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation. The justices therefore did not weigh in on the legality of the policy itself, instead reversing a ruling by a federal district court in Texas that struck down the policy. The vote was 8-1. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a majority that included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion in which he agreed that the states lacked standing, but for a different reason; his opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett (who wrote her own concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch).
Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter. He complained that the court’s decision left states “already laboring under the effects of massive illegal immigration even more helpless.”
The policy at the center of the case, United States v. Texas, was outlined in a September 2021 memorandum by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. The memorandum explains that because the Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of the more than 11 million noncitizens who could be subject to deportation, immigration officials should prioritize the apprehension and deportation of three specific groups of people: suspected terrorists; noncitizens who have committed crimes; and those caught recently at the border.
Texas and Louisiana went to federal court in Texas to challenge the policy. U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton agreed that the policy violates federal law and vacated it nationwide. The Biden administration then came to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in – but left Tipton’s ruling striking down the policy in place while it considered the dispute.
The justices had agreed to review three separate questions. The first was whether the states had a legal right to bring their lawsuit – a concept known as standing – at all. The second was whether federal immigration laws require the federal government to detain noncitizens who have committed certain crimes after their release from prison and to keep in custody noncitizens who are subject to final deportation orders. The third was whether Tipton had the power to block the Biden administration from implementing the policy nationwide.
