United States v. Texas
| Decision Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO. EP-21-CV-173-KC, CAUSE NO. EP-21-CV-178-KC |
| Citation | 586 F.Supp.3d 574 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of TEXAS and Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Defendants. Annunciation House; Angry Tias & Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley; Jennifer Harbury; and Fiel Houston, Plaintiffs, v. Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; and Steven McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
586 F.Supp.3d 574
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
The State of TEXAS and Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Defendants.
Annunciation House; Angry Tias & Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley; Jennifer Harbury; and Fiel Houston, Plaintiffs,
v.
Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; and Steven McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendants.
CAUSE NO. EP-21-CV-173-KC
CAUSE NO. EP-21-CV-178-KC
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.
Signed February 17, 2022
Alexander K. Haas, Jean Lin, Michael Joseph Gerardi, Zachary Avallone, Brian Boynton, Joshua M. Kolsky, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff in EP-21-CV-173-KC.
Judd E. Stone, Amy Snow Hilton, Patrick K. Sweeten, William Thomas Thompson, William D. Wassdorf, Daniel Lawrence Abrahamson, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant State of Texas in EP-21-CV-173-KC.
Patrick K. Sweeten, William D. Wassdorf, Amy Snow Hilton, Daniel Lawrence Abrahamson, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant Greg Abbott in EP-21-CV-173-KC.
Eric C. Rassbach, Lori H. Windham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for Amicus Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in EP-21-CV-173-KC.
Eric C. Rassbach, Lori H. Windham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for Amicus Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in EP-21-CV-173-KC.
Andre I. Segura, Law Office of Andre Ivan Segura, Houston, TX, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Houston, TX, Kathryn Lynn Huddleston, Kathryn Huddleston Law Office, Houston, TX, Adriana Cecilia Pinon, ACLU Foundation of Texas, Houston, TX, Cody Wofsy, Katrina Eiland, Spencer Amdur, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, Ming Cheung, Noor Zafar, Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs in EP-21-CV-178-KC.
Patrick K. Sweeten, Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants in EP-21-CV-178-KC.
ORDER
KATHLEEN CARDONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On this day, the Court considered Defendants State of Texas and Governor Greg Abbott's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 67. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED .
I. BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order No. GA-37, titled "Relating to the transportation of migrants during the COVID-19 disaster" ("GA-37" or "EO"). Tex. Exec. Order No. GA-37 (July 28, 2021), https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/EO-GA-37_transportation_of_migrants_during_COVID_IMAGE_07-28-2021.pdf; see Compl. ¶ 23, ECF No. 1. GA-37 mandates that "[n]o person, other than a federal, state, or local law enforcement official, shall provide ground transportation to a group of migrants who have been detained by [United States Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP")] for crossing the border illegally or who would have been subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order." EO ¶ 1; Compl. ¶ 24. GA-37 directs the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS") to "stop any vehicle upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of paragraph 1, and to reroute such a vehicle back to its point of origin or a port of entry if a violation is confirmed." EO ¶ 2; Compl. ¶ 24. GA-37 further authorizes DPS to impound any vehicle "being used to transport migrants in violation of paragraph 1, or that refuses to be rerouted in violation of paragraph 2." EO ¶ 3; Compl. ¶ 24.
On July 30, 2021, the United States filed this action against the State of Texas and Governor Abbott in his official capacity as governor of Texas, asserting that GA-37 violates the Supremacy Clause and seeking to enjoin enforcement of GA-37. Compl. In its Complaint, the United States claims that GA-37 is preempted as an obstacle to federal immigration law because it authorizes state officials to make and act on federal immigration determinations and interferes with the federal government's ability to release and transport noncitizens. Compl. ¶¶ 33–37. The United States also claims that GA-37 violates the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause because it purports to directly regulate federal officials and contractors engaged in their official duties. Compl. ¶¶ 38–41.
The United States immediately filed its Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 3. On August 26, 2021, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering that "Defendants, their agents, officers, and employees, and all other persons and entities in active concert or participation
with them are enjoined from taking any action to enforce the executive order."1 Prelim. Inj. Order, ECF No. 52 at 18. That injunction remains in force.
On October 11, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the United States’ claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Mot. 3–12. The United States filed its Response in Opposition on November 8, 2021. ECF No. 75. On December 6, 2021, Defendants filed their Reply. ECF No. 78.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standards
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs. , 545 U.S. 546, 552, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ; Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency of U.S. , 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2004). Without jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, federal courts lack the power to adjudicate claims. Exxon Mobil , 545 U.S. at 552, 125 S.Ct. 2611 ; People's Nat'l Bank , 362 F.3d at 336. A party may challenge a district court's subject matter jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
A federal court must consider a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) before any other challenge because a court must have subject matter jurisdiction before determining the validity of a claim. Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994). The party asserting jurisdiction constantly bears the burden of proof that the jurisdiction does in fact exist. Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Where the motion to dismiss is based on the complaint alone, the court must decide whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Paterson v. Weinberger , 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) challenges a complaint on the basis that it fails...
To continue reading
Request your trial