Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
January 27, 2020, Decided
[*599] [**115] The application for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s October 11, 2019 orders granting a preliminary injunction are stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Concur by: GORSUCH
Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.
Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the grant of stay.
On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security began a rulemaking process to define the term “public charge,” as it is used in the Nation’s immigration laws. Approximately 10 months and 266,000 comments later, the agency issued a final rule. Litigation swiftly [***2] followed, with a number of States, organizations, and individual plaintiffs variously alleging that the new definition violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the immigration laws themselves. These plaintiffs have urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it applies to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.
These efforts have met with mixed results. The Northern District of California ordered the government not to enforce the new rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions—California, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, [**116] and the District of Columbia. The Eastern District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing its rule globally. But both of those orders were soon stayed by the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits. Meanwhile, across the country, the District of Maryland entered its own universal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth Circuit. And while all these developments were unfolding on the coasts, the Northern [***3] District of Illinois was busy fashioning its own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State of Illinois.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
140 S. Ct. 599 *; 206 L. Ed. 2d 115 **; 2020 U.S. LEXIS 813 ***; 88 U.S.L.W. 3243; 2020 WL 413786
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, ET AL.
Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2412 (U.S., Apr. 24, 2020)
Prior History: [***1] ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
New York v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 913 (2d Cir. N.Y., Jan. 8, 2020)
injunctions, nationwide, universal, courts, orders, cases