East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al v. William Barr, et al
| Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:19-cv-16487 |
| Type | civil / united states |
| Nature of Suit | 465 Immigration - Other Immigration Actions |
| Case Filed: | Jul 29, 2019 |
| Terminated: | Jul 06, 2020 |
Amicus Curiae
24 Counties and Cities
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Former National Security Officals
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Immigration Reform Law Institute
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Kids In Need of Defense
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Law School Clinics
|
|
Amicus Curiae
National CIS Council 119
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Non-Profit Organizations
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
|
|
Amicus Curiae
Professors of Immigration Law
|
|
Amicus Curiae
State of Arizona
|
|
Amicus Curiae
The States of California
|
|
Appellant
Alejandro N. Mayorkas
|
|
Appellant
Chad F. Wolf
|
|
Appellant
Executive Office for Immigration Review
|
|
Appellant
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
|
|
Appellant
James McHenry
|
|
Appellant
Jean King
|
|
Appellant
John P. Sanders
|
|
Appellant
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
|
|
Appellant
Kevin K. McAleenan
|
|
Appellant
L. Francis Cissna
|
|
Appellant
Mark A. Morgan
|
|
Appellant
Matthew Albence
|
|
Appellant
Merrick B. Garland
|
|
Appellant
Tae Johnson
|
|
Appellant
Tracy Renaud
|
|
Appellant
Troy A. Miller
|
|
Appellant
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
|
|
Appellant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
|
|
Appellant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
|
|
Appellant
United States Department of Justice
|
|
Appellant
William P. Barr
|
|
Appellee
Al Otro Lado
|
|
Appellee
Central American Resource Center
|
|
Appellee
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
|
|
Appellee
Innovation Law Lab
|
GPO
Aug 16 2019
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and MARK J. BENNETT) (TASHIMA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part) Appellants seek a stay pending appeal of the district courtâ??s July 24, 2019 order preliminarily enjoining the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Securityâ??s joint interim final rule, â??Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modificationsâ?? (the â??Ruleâ??), 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019). The district court found that the Rule likely did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Actâ??s (APA) notice-and-comment and 30-day grace period requirements because Appellants did not adequately support invocation of the â??good causeâ?? and â??foreign affairsâ?? exemptions under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (d)(3); Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 357 (9th Cir. 1982) (good cause exemption â??should be interpreted narrowly so that the exception will not swallow the ruleâ?? (internal citations omitted)); Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356, 1360 n.4 (9th Cir. 1980) (foreign affairs exemption â??would become distendedâ?? if applied to immigration rules generally and requires showing that ordinary public noticing would â??provoke definitely undesirable international consequencesâ??). We conclude that Appellants have not made the required â??strong showingâ?? that they are likely to succeed on the merits on this issue. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Consequently, we deny the motion for stay pending appeal (Docket Entry No. [11385529-2]) insofar as the injunction applies within the Ninth Circuit. We grant the motion for stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction applies outside the Ninth Circuit, because the nationwide scope of the injunction is not supported by the record as it stands. Cf. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1243â??45 (9th Cir. 2018). [SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT] While this appeal proceeds, the district court retains jurisdiction to further develop the record in support of a preliminary injunction extending beyond the Ninth Circuit. Cf. Trump, 897 F.3d at 1245 (â??Because the record is insufficiently developed as to the question of the national scope of the injunction, we vacate the injunction to the extent that it applies outside California and remand to the district court for a more searching inquiry into whether this case justifies the breadth of the injunction imposed.â??). The opening brief is due September 3, 2019; the answering brief is due October 1, 2019; and the optional reply is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. This case will be placed on a December 2019 argument calendar. The State of Arizonaâ??s amicus brief in support of Appellantsâ?? motion has been filed. The Professors of Immigration Lawâ??s motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to Appellantsâ?? motion (Docket Entry No. [11389599-2]) is granted, and the brief is filed. [11399362]--[Edited: attached corrected PDF of order (replaced with formatted PDF). 08/22/2019 by SLM] |
|
|
GPO
Jul 06 2020
FILED OPINION (WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and ERIC D. MILLER) AFFIRMED. Judge: WAF Authoring, Judge: RRC Concurring, Judge: EDM Concurring & dissenting. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [11742103] [19-16487, 19-16773] |
|
|
GPO
Apr 08 2021
Filed order and amended opinion (WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and ERIC D. MILLER). Appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc on October 5, 2020 (19-16487, Dkt. Entry [11847667-2]; 19-16773, Dkt. Entry 75). Judges W. Fletcher and Miller have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Clifton so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The opinion filed on July 6, 2020, is amended as follows: (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT). An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed. AFFIRMED. [12067589] [19-16487, 19-16773] |
| 1. | Federal court issues split decision, allowing Trump?s latest asylum restrictions to continue in Texas, New Mexico (washingtonpost.com) |
| Submitted Mon 08/19/2019 | |
| Docket last updated: 05/23/2024 10:27 AM PDT |
| Monday, July 29, 2019 | ||
| 1 | 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows:. to be set. Preliminary Injunction Appeal. C.R. 3-3. [11379917] (RT) [Entered: 07/29/2019 03:09 PM] | |
|
Att: 1
1 pgs
Docketing Letter
|
||
|
Att: 2
1 pgs
Mediation Letter
|
||
|
Att: 3
22 pgs
Case Opening Packet
|
||
| 2 | 2
2
pgs
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): The appeal filed July 29, 2019 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. The mediation questionnaire is due three days after the date of this order. If they have not already done so, within 7 calendar days after the filing date of this order, the parties shall make arrangements to obtain from the court reporter an official transcript of proceedings in the district court that will be included in the record on appeal. The briefing schedule shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than August 26, 2019; the answering brief is due September 23, 2019 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b). No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31- 2.2(a)(3). Any request for an extension of time to file a brief must be made by written motion under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [11380309] (ME) [Entered: 07/29/2019 05:05 PM]
|
|