Barrett, J., concurring in judgment
II
In addition to its reliance on Linda R. S., the Court offers several reasons why “federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind.” Ante, at 6. I am skeptical that these reasons are rooted in Article III standing doctrine.
Take, for example, the Court’s discussion of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. 748 (2005). Ante, at 10. There, we reasoned that given “[t]he deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion,” a “true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication” from the legislature than, for example, the bare use of the word “ ‘shall’ ” in a statutory directive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. The Court today concludes that “no such statute is present in this case.” Ante, at 10. But Castle Rock is not a case about Article III standing. It addressed “whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest” under the Fourteenth Amendment “in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.” 545 U. S., at 750–751. I see no reason to opine on Castle Rock’s application here, especially given that the parties (correctly) treat Castle Rock as relevant to the merits of their statutory claims rather than to the States’ standing to bring them. See Brief for Petitioners 8; Brief for Respondents 30.
The Court also invokes “the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce federal law.” Ante, at 6. I question whether the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Art. II, §3, is relevant to the standing analysis. While it is possible that Article II imposes justiciability limits on federal courts, it is not clear to me why any such limit should be expressed through Article III’s definition of a cognizable injury. Moreover, the Court works the same magic on the Take Care Clause that it does on Castle Rock: It takes an issue that entered the case on the merits
