Texas v. United States

Decision Date09 November 2015
Docket NumberNo. 15–40238.,15–40238.
Citation809 F.3d 134
Parties State of TEXAS; State of Alabama; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Utah; State Of West Virginia; State Of Wisconsin; Paul R. Lepage, Governor, State of Maine; Patrick L. McCrory, Governor, State of North Carolina; C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor, State of Idaho; Phil Bryant, Governor, State of Mississippi; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of Florida; State of Arizona; State of Arkansas; Attorney General Bill Schuette; State of Nevada; State of Tennessee, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Sarah R. Saldana, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ; Leon Rodriguez, Director of U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Scott A. Keller, Solicitor (argued), J. Campbell Barker, Deputy Solicitor General, Angela Veronica Colmenero, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, April L. Farris, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Andrew S. Oldham, Deputy General Counsel, Alex Potapov, Charles Eugene Roy, Assistant Attorney General, Austin, TX, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Scott R. McIntosh, Beth S. Brinkmann, Esq., Jeffrey A. Clair, Esq., Kyle R. Freeny, Kathleen Roberta Hartnett, William Ernest Havemann, Trial Attorney, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor (argued), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for DefendantsAppellants.

Noah Guzzo Purcell, Office of the Solicitor General for the State of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Amici Curiae State of Washington, State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Maryland, State of Massachusetts, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, District of Columbia and State of Virginia.

Michael Bekesha, Paul Orfanedes, Esq., Judicial Watch, Incorporated, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Incorporated.

Leif A. Olson, Olson Firm, P.L.L.C., Humble, TX, Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Cato Institute and Professor Jeremy Rabkin.

Steven James Lechner, Esq., Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO, for Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Jeremy W. Shweder, New York, N.Y., for Amici Curiae Mayor Bill De Blasio, of New York City, Mayor Eric Garcetti, of Los Angeles, City of Alexandria, Mayor Ed Pawlowski, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Mayor Kasim Reed, of Atlanta, Mayor Steve Adler, of Austin, Texas, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings–Blake, City Council of Baltimore, Maryland and City of Bell, California.

Jay A. Sekulow, Esq., American Center for Law & Justice, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Certain Members of Congress, American Center for Law and Justice and Committee to Defend the Separation of Powers.

James Davis Blacklock, Senior Counsel, Austin, TX, for Amici Curiae Governor of Texas, Governor of Louisiana, Governor of New Jersey and Governor of South Dakota.

Seth Paul Waxman, Paul Reinherz Wolfson, WilmerHale, Washington DC, for Amici Curiae Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, Representative Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip, Representative James E. Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader, Representative Xavier Becerra, Democratic Caucus Chair, Representative Joseph Crowley and Democratic Caucus Vice–Chair.

Matthew James Ginsburg, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra, Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Michael Barnes, Former Representative of Maryland, Howard Berman, Former Representative of California, Victor H. Fazio, Former Representative of California, Charles Gonzalez, Former Representative of Texas, James A. Leach, Former Representative of Iowa, George Miller, III, Former Representative of California, Silvestre Reyes, Former Representative of Texas, David Skaggs, Former Representative of Colorado, Henry A. Waxman, Former Representative of California and Raymond Lahood.

Clifford M. Sloan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae American Apparel, Incorporated, Capital City Fruit, Incorporated, Farmers Investment Company, Latin–American Chamber of Commerce of Utah, Marek Brothers Construction, Incorporated, New Solutions Group, L.L.C., and Nisei Farmers League.

Benjamin Gross Shatz, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae Church World Service, Reverend Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Disciples Home Missions and Sisters of Mercy of the Americas.

Chirag Gopal Badlani, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Limited, Chicago, IL, for Amici Curiae Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Executive Research Forum, Chief Art Acevedo, City of Austin, Texas, Police Department, Chief Charlie Beck, Los Angeles, California, Police Department and Chief David Bejarano, Chula Vista, California, Police Department.

Bradley S. Phillips, Munger, Tolles & Olson, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae David Abraham, Professor of Law, University of, Miami School of Law, Muneer I. Ahmad, Clinical Professor of Law, Yale Law School, Raquel Aldana, Professor of Law, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Farrin R. Anello, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Roxana Bacon, Visiting/Adjunct/Lecturer Professor of Immigration Law, University of Miami, Syracuse University, University of Arizona, Arizona State University.

Nina Perales, Esq., San Antonio, TX, Adam Paul KohSweeney, Esq., Gabriel Markoff, Esq., O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, Linda J. Smith, DLA Piper, L.L.P. (US), Los Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae Jane Doe # 1, Jane Doe # 2 and Jane Doe # 3.

Stephen Blake Kinnaird, Paul Hastings, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Christopher A. Coons, Mazie K. Hirono and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Esq., Angelique Marie Montano, Quan Law Group, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Congressman Al Green.

Matthew E. Price, Jenner & Block, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae American Federation of Teachers, First Focus, National Education Association, Aspira, Educators for Fair Consideration, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, Pomona College and Scholarship Foundation of St. Louis.

Jonathan Weissglass, Altshuler Berzon, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, Karen Cassandra Tumlin, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae ACLU of Nevada, Action North Carolina, Advancement Project, Aim for Equity and Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice.

James Peterson, Judicial Watch, Incorporated, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae State Legislators for Legal Immigration.

Michael Meriwether Hethmon, Senior Counsel, Dale Wilcox, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Immigration Reform Law Institute, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Remembrance Project and National Sheriffs' Association.

Lawrence John Joseph, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, Incorporated.

William Jeffrey Olson, Esq., Vienna, VA, for Amici Curiae Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Trea Senior Citizens League, United States Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Incorporated, United States Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Institute on the Constitution.

Ernest Young, Apex, NC, for Amicus Curiae Ernest Young.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before KING, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

The United States1 appeals a preliminary injunction, pending trial, forbidding implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program ("DAPA"). Twenty-six states (the "states"2 ) challenged DAPA under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution;3 in an impressive and thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order issued February 16, 2015, the district court enjoined the program on the ground that the states are likely to succeed on their claim that DAPA is subject to the APA's procedural requirements. Texas v. United States, 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 677 (S.D.Tex.2015).4

The government appealed and moved to stay the injunction pending resolution of the merits. After extensive briefing and more than two hours of oral argument, a motions panel denied the stay after determining that the appeal was unlikely to succeed on its merits. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 743 (5th Cir.2015). Reviewing the district court's order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing; they have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims; and they have satisfied the other elements required for an injunction.5


In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ("DACA").6 In the DACA Memo to agency heads, the DHS Secretary "set[ ] forth how, in the exercise of ... prosecutorial discretion, [DHS] should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people" and listed five "criteria [that] should be satisfied before an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
328 cases
  • Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 28, 2021
    ...to permit such non-students to engage in employment." Pl.’s Mot. at 12. To support its argument, Washtech relies on Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), and asserts that the Texas Court held that DHS does not have "the power to authorize alien employment independently of Co......
  • Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 5, 2018
    ...In that case, DAPA was struck down by the district court, see id. , and a divided Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the decision, see 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). In June 2016, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the decision. See United States v. Texas , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 22......
  • Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 13, 2020
    ...harms stemming from a federal administrative action were "self-inflicted" by the states as a standing issue); Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 159 (5th Cir. 2015) (same). Here, USDA has not alleged that states administered their SNAP programs to manufacture injuries, nor has the USDA ......
  • Earl v. Boeing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • January 27, 2021
    ...‘a statute does not expressly negate the existence of a claimed administrative power.’ " Id. at 461 (quoting Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 186 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided Court , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (mem.) (per curiam)). If courts simply......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
  • Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 677-78 (S.D. Tex.) (enjoining Obama Administration immigration policy), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (390.) See, e.g., Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21-CV-oo778, 2021 WL 2446......
  • Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-6, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...419 (using a similar def‌inition for “national injunctions”). 167. See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 604 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). 168. See, e.g., Hawaii v. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1......
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...such extra-record discovery as occurred"). (112.) Mat 2573. (113.) Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591,614 (S.D. Tex.), affd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), affd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (114.) Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief at 3, Texas, 86 F. Su......
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 95 No. 5, May 2020
    • May 1, 2020
    ...3d 810, 836 (N.D. Tex. 2016); Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 677-78 (S.D. Tex.) (enjoining parts of DACA and DAPA), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134, 146 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016) (mem.) (per curiam); Sequoia Forestkeeper v. Tidwell, 84......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT