Caton v. American Security & Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that courts lack standards for adjudicating “the question [of] whether immigration control is a failure”
• explaining that “invasion” requires “armed hostility from another political entity,” which is not “the influx of legal and illegal aliens into” the United States
• holding, in the alternative, that a claim that the United States failed to protect a state from an invasion within the meaning of Article IV, § 4 is nonjusticiable
• holding, in the alternative, that a claim that the United States failed to protect a state from an invasion within the meaning of Article IV, § 4 is nonjusticiable
• finding nonjusticiable plaintiffs’ claim that “the federal government violated the Invasion Clause because the influx of legal and illegal aliens into New York State represents an ‘invasion,’”
• “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).