Department Of Homeland Security v. New York

140 S. Ct. 599 (2020) c00911WALGREEN CO. V. SARA CREEK PROPERTY CO. 966 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On October 10, 2018, D began a rulemaking process to define the term “public charge,” as it is used in the Nation’s immigration laws. Almost a year and 266,000 comments later, D issued a final rule. Just about everyone filed suit for all kinds of reasons that it violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the immigration laws themselves. New York (Ps) have urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it applies to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone. The Northern District of California ordered the government not to enforce the new rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions-California, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. The Eastern District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing its rule globally. Both of those orders were soon stayed by the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits. The District of Maryland entered its own universal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth Circuit. The Northern District of Illinois was busy fashioning its own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State of Illinois. A single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit. The Second Circuit declined to stay this particular universal injunction. D petitioned the Supreme Court.