Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
CA1, Sept. 1, 2020
"The district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of this argument and preliminarily enjoined ICE from implementing the Directive or otherwise civilly arresting individuals attending court on official business anywhere in Massachusetts. See Ryan v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 382 F. Supp. 3d 142, 159, 161 (D. Mass. 2019). On this interlocutory appeal, we have carefully considered the district court's rescript and the compendious briefing furnished by both the parties and an array of helpful amici. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the INA implicitly incorporates a common law privilege against civil arrests for individuals attending court on official business. Turning to the plaintiffs' backup argument, we likewise conclude that, on the underdeveloped record before us, the plaintiffs have so far failed to show that they are likely to succeed in arguing that ICE lacks statutory authority to conduct such arrests in Massachusetts because Congress has not clearly stated its intent to permit arrests that violate state law. Consequently, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."