Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-15071,No. 18-15068, No. 18-15128, No. 18-15072, No. 18-15069, No. 18-15133, No. 18-15134, No. 18-15070,18-15068 |
| Parties | REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants. State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants. City of San Jose, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in his official capacity; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants. Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants. County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants. Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants. Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees. Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Hashim M. Mooppan (argued), Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Thomas Pulham, Abby C. Wright, and Mark B. Stern, Appellate Staff; Alex G. Tse, Acting United States Attorney; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.
Michael J. Mongan (argued), Deputy Solicitor General; Samuel P. Siegel, Associate Deputy Solicitor General; James F. Zahradka II, Deputy Attorney General; Michael L. Newman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of California.
Susan P. Herman, Deputy Attorney General; Janet T. Mills, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, Maine; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Maine.
Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Minnesota.
Leah J. Tullin, Assistant Attorney General; Steven M. Sullivan, Solicitor General; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General; Attorney General's Office, Baltimore, Maryland; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Maryland.
Jeffrey Michael Davidson (argued), Breanna K. Jones, David S. Watnick, Erika Douglas, and Mónica Ramírez Almadani, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, California; Ivano M. Ventresca, Megan A. Crowley, Alexander A. Berengaut, Mark H. Lynch, and Robert A. Long, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee The Regents of the University of California, et al.
Brian Danitz, Tamarah Prevost, and Justin T. Berger, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee City of San José.
Mark D. Rosenbaum (argued), Malhar Shah, and Judy London, Public Counsel, Los Angeles, California; Haley S. Morrisson, Matthew S. Rozen, and Nicole A. Saharsky, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kelsey J. Helland, Jonathan N. Soleimani, Kirsten Galler, Ethan D. Dettmer, and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; Luis Cortes Romera, Barrera Legal Group PLLC, Kent, Washington; Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley, California; Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Leah M. Litman, Irvine, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees Dulce Garcia, Miriam Gonzalez Avila, Saul Jimenez Suarez, Virdiana Chabolla Mendoza, Norma Ramirez, and Jirayut Latthivongskorn.
Andrew Kushner, Eric P. Brown, and Stacey M. Leyton, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee County of Santa Clara and Service Employees International Union Local 521.
Marcelo Quiñones, Laura S. Trice, Greta S. Hansen, and James R. Williams, Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, San Jose, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee County of Santa Clara.
Jessica Levin, Melissa Lee, Lorraine K. Bannai, and Robert S. Chang, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae 42 Historians and the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.
Leo Gertner, Deborah L. Smith, and Nicole G. Berner, Service Employees International Union, Washington, D.C.; Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.; David J. Strom, American Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C.; Judith Rivlin, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Washington, D.C.; Patricia M. Shea, Communications Workers of America, Washington, D.C.; Bradley Raymond, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Kolick Jr., International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Hanover, Maryland; Mario Martínez, Martínez Aguilasocho & Lynch APLC, Bakersfield, California; for Amici Curiae Service Employees International Union; American Federation of Teachers; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Communications Workers of America; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International Union of Painters and Allied Trades; and United Farm Workers of America.
Geoffrey S. Brounell and Peter Karanjia, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae United We Dream.
Sean Goldhammer, Lubna A, Alam, Jason Walta, Emma Leheny, and Alice O'Brien, National Education Association, Washington, D.C.; Andra M. Donovan, San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, California; Abhas Hajela, Capitol Advisors Group LLC, Sacramento, California; Eric E. Stevens, Girard Edwards Stevens & Tucker LLP, Sacramento, California; Kathryn M. Sheffield, California Faculty Association, Sacramento, California; Glenn Rothner, Rothner Segall & Greenstone, Pasadena, California; D. Michael Ambrose and Elaine M. Yama-Garcia, California School Boards Association Education Legal Alliance, Sacramento, California; Jean Shin and Laura P. Juran, California Teachers Association, Burlingame, California; Vibiana M. Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education, Downey, California; Devora Navera Reed and David Holmquist, Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California; Sonja H. Trainor and Francisco Negrón, National School Boards Association, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael L. Smith, Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California; Raoul Bozio, Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California; for Amici Curiae Public Education Groups.
Caryn C. Lederer, Chirag G. Badlani, and Matthew J. Piers, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; Daniel B. Rice and Joshua A. Geltzer, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Leaders.
Zachary Kolodin, Michael N. Fresco, Adeel A. Mangi, and Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York; Juvaria Khan, Sirine Shebaya, and Jonathan Smith, Muslim Advocates, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae 119 Religious Organizations.
Jennifer J. Yun, Ishan Bhabha, Lindsay C. Harrison, and Thomas J. Perrelli, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Institutions of Higher Education.
Jennifer B. Sokoler and Anton Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae Eighteen Universities.
Lauren R. Goldman and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. DeVos
...standing.2.3 Redressability If the plaintiffs prevail, the court can set aside the Delay Rule. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 908 F.3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018). The Disclosure Rule will go into effect, and the plaintiffs' educational institutions will be requi......
-
Casa De Md., Inc. v. Wolf
...v. DHS , 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) ), aff'd , 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) ; see also Hawaii v. Trump , 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd on other grounds , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 201 L.Ed.2......
-
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...proceedings against an individual or class of individuals otherwise eligible for removal[,]" Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476, 487 (9th Cir. 2018), rev'd in part, vacated in part, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) —to 4.3 million......
-
Guilford Coll. v. McAleenan
...v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Washington , 847 F.3d at 1167 ), aff'd , 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018). See Hawaii v. Trump , 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd on other grounds , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 201 L.Ed.2d 775 (201......
-
"LAW AND" THE OLC'S ARTICLE II IMMUNITY MEMOS.
...reviewable if it leads to an abdication of the agency's statutory responsibility); Regents of Univ. Cal. v. U.S. Homeland Secretary, 908 F.3d 476, 507 (9th Cir. 2018) (clarifying that a "general statement of policy" is judicially reviewable where the agency believes it has no authority to d......
-
NONCITIZENS' ACCESS TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS: THE NARROWING OF s. 1252(b) (9) POST-JENNINGS.
...924 rescission F.3d 684, 697 (4th Cir. 2019) Regents of the Univ. 9th Challenging DACA of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't rescission of Homeland Sec, 908 F.3d 476, 504 n.19 (9th Cir. 2018), affd in part 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1907 (2020) Inland Empire-Immigrant 9th Challenging DACA Youth rescission Collective......
-
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
...(9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1049-50 (N.D. Cal. 2018), aff'd, 908 F.3d 476, 520 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2779 (2019) (mem.). I count in this number those cases still on the Ninth Circuit's docket d......
-
Reasoned Explanation and Political Accountability in the Roberts Court.
...in the lower-court decisions in all three of the cases before the Court. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec, 908 F.3d 476, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2018) ("[J]udicial review under these circumstances serves the critical function of promoting accountability within the Exe......