AL Otro Lado v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-56417,19-56417 |
| Citation | 945 F.3d 1223 |
| Parties | AL OTRO LADO, a California corporation; Abigail Doe; Beatrice Doe; Carolina Doe; Dinora Doe; Inbgrid Doe; Jose Doe; Ursula Doe; Victoria Doe; Bianca Doe; Juan Doe; Roberto Doe; Cesar Doe; Maria Doe ; Emiliana Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Chad F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security; Mark A. Morgan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The government requests an emergency temporary stay of the district court’s order provisionally certifying a class, and preliminarily enjoining the government from enforcing the Third Country Transit Rule, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4), against non-Mexican nationals who were allegedly in the process of arriving at a port of entry before the Third Country Transit Rule went into effect. The government also seeks a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal.
A temporary stay in this context (sometimes referred to as an administrative stay) is only intended to preserve the status quo until the substantive motion for a stay pending appeal can be considered on the merits, and does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for stay pending appeal.
Because granting the stay request would preserve the status quo, we grant the government’s motion for a temporary stay to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.
The Third Country Transit Rule has been in effect since July 16, 2019. Prohibiting the government from applying the Rule to the proposed class members could cause complications at the border in the period before the motion for stay pending appeal is decided. Our ruling is based on these considerations and not in any respect on the merits of the dispute.
Plaintiffs’ response to the motion for stay pending appeal is due December 23, 2019, and any government reply is due December 30, 2019.
The parties are directed to appear for oral argument on the motion for stay pending appeal on Thursday, January 9, 2020, at 10:00 am in San Francisco, California. Each side will be allotted 20 minutes of argument time. The parties are encouraged to appear in person if possible. If any party wishes to appear by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al Otro Lado, Corp. v. Wolf
...the government from applying the Rule to the proposed class members could cause complications at the border." Al Otro Lado v. Wolf , 945 F.3d 1223, 1224 (9th Cir. 2019). The court now goes in a different direction and allows the district court's injunction to go back into effect. Because th......
-
Porter v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.
...Following Nken , other circuit courts have similarly described stays as "preserv[ing] the status quo," Al Otro Lado v. Wolf , 945 F.3d 1223, 1224 (9th Cir. 2019), "suspend[ing] judicial alteration of the status quo," Veasey v. Perry , 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Nken , 556 U.S......
-
AL Otro Lado v. Wolf, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC
...Oral argument on the underlying appeal was held on July 10, 2020 and a determination remains pending. (See Al Otro Lado et al. v. Chad Wolf, et al. , 945 F.3d 1223 (9th 2019), Dkt. Nos. 97, 105.)B. Effect of Preliminary Injunction on Immigration ProceedingsIn the aftermath of the Preliminar......
-
Doe v. Trump
...See 9th Cir. R. 27-3. We have granted such stays before, including in another case today. E.g. , Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf , No. 19-56417, 945 F.3d 1223, 2019 WL 7046371 (9th Cir. 2019) ; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr , No. 19-16487 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2019), ECF No. 45; Innovation L......