Texas v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–40238.,15–40238. |
| Citation | Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) |
| 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. |
| Court | U.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 Plaintiffs–Appellees.
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 Defendants–Appellants.
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 CuriaeMountain States Legal Foundation.
Jeremy W. Shweder, New York, N.Y., for Amici CuriaeMayorBill De Blasio, of New York City, MayorEric Garcetti, of Los Angeles, City of Alexandria, MayorEd Pawlowski, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, MayorKasim Reed, of Atlanta, MayorSteve Adler, of Austin, Texas, MayorStephanie 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 CuriaeGovernor 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 CuriaeRepresentativeNancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, RepresentativeSteny Hoyer, Democratic Whip, RepresentativeJames E. Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader, RepresentativeXavier Becerra, Democratic Caucus Chair, RepresentativeJoseph 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 CuriaeMichael 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 CuriaeDavid 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 CuriaeJane 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 CuriaeImmigration 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 CuriaeErnest Young.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before KING, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
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").6In 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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
- United States v. Texas
-
El Paso Cnty. v. Trump
...Court, and it therefore cannot overrule our circuit precedents holding that, "it is not beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction."
Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015). Where the district court determined that all of the Government's § 2808 expenditures were unlawful, it was not an abuse of discretion for it to enjoin those expenditures. And because the § 284 transfer was likewise unlawful,... -
Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
...(1979).11 Several recent cases involving nationwide relief rely on Texas v. United States, in which a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed nationwide injunctive relief within a preliminary injunction. See
Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 187-88. The issue in Texas v. United States involved States' and state officials' challenge to United States' and officials of Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) actions relating to immigration. Texasinvolving nationwide relief rely on Texas v. United States, in which a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed nationwide injunctive relief within a preliminary injunction. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 187-88. The issue in Texas v. United Statesinvolved States' and state officials' challenge to United States' and officials of Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) actions relating to immigration. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 146-50.United States, 809 F.3d at 187-88. The issue in Texas v. United States involved States' and state officials' challenge to United States' and officials of Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) actions relating to immigration. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 146-50. In affirming nationwide relief within a preliminary injunction, the Fifth Circuit explainedThe government claims that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion and requests that... -
Nino v. Johnson
...federal agents from implementing Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAPA") and from expanding DACA. See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015), aff'd,
809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 906, 193 L. Ed. 2d 788 (2016). (R.1, Compl. ¶ 31). On June 19, 2015, Mrs. Morales self-deported from Chicago to Mexico. (R.14-2, Martinez Decl. ¶¶ 14-15). Plaintiffs...
-
State Attorneys General and the Upcoming Biden Administration
...Dep’t of Def. Clean Water Rule, 817 F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 2016), rev’d Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., No. 16-299 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2018). [4] See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 669-70 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd,
809 F.3d 134, 171-86 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 [5] Texas v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 3d 810, 815–16, 836 (N.D. Tex. 2016). [6] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/state-attorneys-general-have-sued-trump-s-administration-138-times-n1247733.... -
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Vacate TRO on Trump’s Immigration Order
...28. [5] Slip op. at 26. [6] See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016). Pierre Georges Bonnefil Patrick Brady Jang Hyuk Im Matthew Groban Jungmin Choi
Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S.Ct. 2271 Pierre Georges Bonnefil Patrick Brady Jang Hyuk Im Matthew Groban Jungmin Choi function JDS_LoadEvent(func) { var existingOnLoad = window.onload; if (typeof window.onload... -
The Trump Administration: Change By Executive Action and Inaction
...Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, (1988), aff’d, 488 U.S. 15 (1988) (per curiam), available on the Cabinet website. Scott Cammarn Anthony Mansfield Pamela Landman Steven Lofchie Jeffrey Robins U.S. v. Texas, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd,
809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 906, 193 L. Ed. 2d 788 (2016) available on the Cabinet See Memorandum: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, from James M. Cole, Deputy Atty....
-
State Standing for Equality
...so, state standing for equality suggests that the 1. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982). 2. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 3. Texas v. United States,
809 F.3d 134, 153 n.36 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court , United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). 4. See District of Columbia v. Trump, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725, 737 (D. Md. 2018). 5. Snapp , 458 U.S. at 597–98.... -
Daca Litigation and the Opportunity for All Campaign
...Entrenching Trump-Era Immigration Policies, 27 Bender's Immigr. Bull. 1971 (2022); Stephen I. Vladeck, Don't Let Republicans Game the Courts by Judge Shopping, N.Y. Times (Feb. 5, 2023), at A18.9. See Kalhan, supra note 6, at 70-73.10. Texas v. United States,
809 F.3d 134(5th Cir. 2015) (affirming preliminary injunction); Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015) (denying stay pending appeal); see Anil Kalhan, DAPA, "Lawful Presence," and the Illusion of a Problem, YAle... -
Presidential Power in the Obama and Trump Administrations
...removable aliens); 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) (implicit discretion to authorize aliens to work in the United States); see generally Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F. 3d 1053, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). [61]
809 F. 3d 134(5th Cir. 2015), affd without opinion by evenly divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 195 L. Ed. 2d 638 (2016). [62] 5 U.S.C. § 553. [63] See Memorandum on Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), September... -
Antitrust and Equal Liberty*
...Harvard University Press, 2022).134. For instance, National Federal of Independent Business v. Department of Labor (595 US___, (2022) (vaccine-or-test mandate); Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. __, *5 (2019);Texas v. United States,
809 F. 3d 134, 181 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d136 S. Ct. 2271(2016); Alabama Association of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 141S. Ct. 2485 (2021) (eviction moratorium); West Virginia v. Environmental ProtectionAgency (June 30, 2022) (generation-shifting...