supplemental brief for appellees - texas v. united states

8/21/2019 Supplemental Brief for Appellees - Texas v. United States

1/39

No. 15-40238

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State ofIndiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Montana; State of

Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of tah;State of !est "irginia; State of !is#onsin; $aul %& Le$age' Go(ernor' Stateof Maine; $atri#k L& M#Cror)' Go(ernor' State of North Carolina; C&L&

*+ut#h, -tter' Go(ernor' State of Idaho; $hil +r)ant' Go(ernor' State ofMississi..i; State of North Dakota; State of -hio; State of -klahoma; State

of /lorida; State of Ari0ona; State of Arkansas; Attorne) General +illS#huette; State of Ne(ada; State of Tennessee' $laintiffs1A..ellees'

v.

nited States of Ameri#a; 2eh Charles 2ohnson' Se#retar)' De.artment of3omeland Se#urit); %& Gil Kerliko4ske' Commissioner of &S& Customs and

+order $rote#tion; %onald D& "itiello' De.ut) Chief of &S& +order $atrol'&S& Customs and +order $rote#tion; Sarah %& Salda5a' Dire#tor of &S&

Immigration and Customs 6nfor#ement; Le7n %odr8gue0' Dire#tor of &S&Citi0enshi. and Immigration Ser(i#es' Defendants1A..ellants&

-n A..eal from the nited States Distri#t Court for theSouthern Distri#t of Texas' +ro4ns(ille' No& 9:91#(13anen' 2&?

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

Ken PaxtonAttorne) General

Charles E. Roy/irst Assistant Attorne) General

-ffi#e of the Attorne) General


2/39

1 i 1

Table of Contents

$ageTable of Authorities &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&ii I& The Court 3as %esol(ed the Issues Ne#essar) to De#ide This

A..eal& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 9

A& Materiall) Identi#al Issues Arise in De#iding !hether toMaintain the $reliminar) InFun#tion >9? During thisA..eal and >


3/39

1 ii 1

Table of Authorities

$age>s?Cases:

Am. Mining Cong. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin.'= /&D&C& Cir& 9? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


4/39

1 iii 1

2am,ert v. Bla!ell '9 /&d =@E >d Cir& 9B? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

2eis v. "hompson'.er #uriam? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 99 Prof%ls & Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala'

=E /&d =< >=th Cir& 9=? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


5/39

1 i( 1

Smart v. Shalala' /&d 99th Cir& 9? >.er #uriam? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


6/39

1 ( 1

6dano! v. lidden Co.1 +ur!ee *amous *oods +iv.'g?>9?>+? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 9E

&S&C& 9E99>b?>9? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


7/39

1 9 1

I. T)e Co"% *as Reso#&e( )e Iss"es Ne+essa%, o e+!(eT)!s A$$ea#.

Materiall) identi#al issues arise in de#iding 4hether to maintain a

.reliminar) inFun#tion during an a..eal of that inFun#tion and during the rest

of the #ase& The sta) .anel full) addressed these issues& Its de#ision is binding

#ir#uit .re#edent be#ause it is .ublished' and it is la4 of the #ase be#ause the

Court #onsidered extensi(e briefing and oral argument&

A. Mae%!a##, I(en!+a# Iss"es A%!se !n e+!(!n /)e)e%

o Ma!na!n )e P%e#!!na%, In"n+!on 1 "%!n )!sA$$ea# an( 2 "%!n )e Res o )!s Case.

Defendants ask this Court to re(erse the .reliminar) inFun#tion& To

.re(ail' Defendants must demonstrate that the distri#t #ourt abused its

dis#retion in 4eighing four fa#tors:

>9? $laintiffs likelihood of su##ess in enFoining DA$A;

>


8/39

1 < 1

>


9/39

1 1

interest and inFun#tion1s#o.e arguments also remained similar& Sta) Mot& 91


10/39

1 1

• 4hether Defendants 4ould be irre.arabl) inFured b) maintaining theinFun#tion >-.&O9=?;

• 4hether $laintiffs 4ould suffer substantial inFur) if DA$A is

im.lemented before a final merits Fudgment >-.&O9=?;

• 4hether the inFun#tion is #ontrar) to the .ubli# interest >-.&O9=?; and

• 4hether the s#o.e of the .reliminar) inFun#tion is im.ro.er >-.&O9E?&

In resol(ing all of those issues' the Court 4as not #onstrained b) limited

fa#tual de(elo.ment; it relied on the #om.lete re#ord on a..eal&

Defendants ma) note that their sta) motion reuired them to make a

*strong sho4ing, that the) are likel) to su##eed on the merits' -.&O


11/39

1 = 1

In short' Defendants sta) motion .resented this Court 4ith the o##asion

to de#ide e(er) issue ne#essar) to resol(e this a..eal' and the Court issued a

length) .ublished o.inion doing so& The Courts resolution of these issues is#orre#t' as ex.lained belo4 in $art II& +ut there is no need to re#onsider these

rulings' as the Courts de#ision sets #ir#uit .re#edent and la4 of the #ase&

C. T)e Co"%s R"#!ns *a&e B!n(!n Fo%+e.

1. T)e $ane#s $"6#!s)e( o$!n!on ses +!%+"! $%e+e(en.

$ublished o.inions b) a three1Fudge .anel set binding la4 of the #ir#uit:

*$ublished .anel o.inions are ordinaril) binding on subseuent .anels&,

Camaho v. "e#. $or!fore Comm%n' = /&d @B' 99 >=th Cir& =th Cir& 9B? >.er #uriam?; see


12/39

1 E 1

#riteria reuiring .ubli#ation' in that it *>b? A..lies an established rule of la4

to fa#ts signifi#antl) different from those in .re(ious .ublished o.inions

a..l)ing the rule,; *>#? 6x.lains' #riti#i0es' or re(ie4s the histor) of existingde#isional or ena#ted la4,; and *>e? Con#erns or dis#usses a fa#tual or legal

issue of signifi#ant .ubli# interest&, 0d. The rule also allo4s >but does not

reuire? .ubli#ation of o.inions' like this one' 4hi#h are *a##om.anied b)

a & & & dissenting o.inion&, 0d.

Nothing in this Courts rules .rohibits .ubli#ation of a motions1.anel

o.inion' or stri.s su#h o.inions of .re#edential for#e& See id.; f. 99th Cir& %&

g?& The Ninth Cir#uit like4ise allo4s *motions .anels PtoQ issue

.ublished de#isions', and it has re#ogni0ed that *a motions .anels .ublished

o.inion binds future .anels the same as does a merits .anels .ublished

o.inion&, 2air v. Bullo! ' JJ /&d JJ'


13/39

1 B 1


14/39

1 1

-f #ourse' most motions1.anel de#isions 4ill not 4arrant extensi(e

#onsideration' and those de#isions 4ill remain un.ublishedif reasons are

gi(en at all& +ut 4hen a motions .anel is #alled u.on to anal)0e and resol(e4eight) legal issues of national im.ortan#e' #ir#uit rulesand #ommon

sensedi#tate that the .anel 4ill .ublish a .re#edential ruling to .re(ent

unne#essar) du.li#ation of effort& The sta) .anels .ublished o.inion here

sets #ir#uit .re#edent and binds future three1Fudge .anels&

2. T)e $ane#s )o#(!ns a%e #a7 o )e +ase.

6(en if a .anels de#ision does not set #ir#uit .re#edent' it ma) still

establish la4 of the #ase& nlike the la41of1the1#ir#uit do#trine' the la41of1

the1#ase do#trine is dis#retionar) and turns on 4hether the .rior ruling 4as

abbre(iated' tentati(e' or deser(ing of re#onsideration for a similar reason&

See1 e.g.' Mattern' 9@ /&d at B@&

The sta) .anels ruling here sets la4 of the #ase b) an) #on#ei(able

measure& nlike man) motions .anels' the .anel here *haPdQ the benefit of

full briefs and & & & oral argument&, Bear Marine ' EE /&merits .anel not

bound b) motions .anel that onl) had *an abbre(iated .ro#eeding,?; 2am,ert

v. Bla!ell ' 9 /&d =@E' =9< n&9B >d Cir& 9B? >sta) .anel de#ision not

binding 4hen it 4as *based on a re#ord less #om.lete & & & and not rea#hed after

the o..ortunit) for the intensi(e stud) a(ailable to a merits .anel,?; Stifel1

)iolaus & Co.1 0n. v. $oolsey & Co.1 0n.' 9 /&d 9=@' 9= >9@th Cir& 9E?

Case: 15-40238 Document: 00513085005 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/18/2015


15/39

1 1

>*PAQ motions .anels de#ision is often tentati(e be#ause it is based on an

abbre(iated re#ord and made 4ithout the benefit of full briefing and oral

argument&,?&Due to the ex.edited briefing s#hedule sought b) Defendants in this

a..eal' the sta) .anel 4as able to #onsider not onl) the motions briefing and

full fa#tual re#ord' but also the merits briefing' a #ourt1ordered su..lemental

brief .re#eding oral argument' o(er t4o hours of oral argument' and all of the

amius briefing& See1 e.g.' -.&O9 nn&' 9@' 9< >dis#ussing merits briefing?; -.&OE

n&@ >noting t4o1hour1.lus oral argument?& The thoroughness of that re(ie4

is borne out in the extensi(el) footnoted


16/39

1 9@ 1

A. T)e Co"% Co%%e+#, R"#e( )a P#a!n!s /e%e L!e#,o S"++ee( on )e Me%!s.

In arguing that $laintiffs ha(e no substantial likelihood of su##ess on the

merits' Defendants raise three issues: >9? standing' D-2 +r& 91


17/39

1 99 1

that inFur) b) in#urring other #osts& And being .ressured to#hange state la4 #onstitutes an inFur)&

-.&O& The Court therefore distinguished Pennsylvania v. )e ersey' 9BE? >.er #uriam?' noting that be#ause *Texas does not ha(e the

le(el of #hoi#e the .laintiffs in Pennsylvania enFo)ed' its inFur) is not self1

infli#ted&, -.&9< n&; id. >dis#ussing the later' #ontrolling de#ision in

$yoming v. (!lahoma' =@< &S& B >9


18/39

1 9< 1

has no4 been re.udiated b) this Court& 0d. None of the .ur.orted offsetting

benefits' -.&O=' are *of the same t).e and arisPingQ from the same

transa#tion, as $laintiffs edu#ation' health#are and la4 enfor#ement #osts&-.&O& A##ordingl)' e(en if those alleged benefits 4ere not s.e#ulati(e > see

States +r& B?' the) #ould not defeat standing&

Standing is *not an a##ounting exer#ise&, )CAA v. overnor of )..' B@

/&d


19/39

1 9 1

determination&, D-2 +r& g?>


20/39

1 9 1

therefore a(ailable' as *PtQhe nited States has not rebutted the strong

.resum.tion of re(ie4abilit) 4ith #lear and #on(in#ing e(iden#e that the INA

.re#ludes re(ie4&, -.&O&

3. No!+e-an(-+oen +#a! O$.912-14.

The Court #orre#tl) reFe#ted Defendants arguments that DA$A does not

reuire A$A noti#e1and1#omment&

a. The Court first rebuffed Defendants *main argument,that DA$A

is exem.t as a *general statementPQ of .oli#)&, -.&O9< >internal uotation

marks omitted?; f. D-2 +r& E1B& The Court ruled that the distri#t #ourt

#ommitted no #lear error in finding that DA$A 4ould not genuinel) lea(e the

agen#) and its em.lo)ees free to exer#ise dis#retion' and therefore is not a

general .oli#) statement& -.&O9& In rea#hing this #on#lusion' the Court

re(ie4ed the numerous bases su..orting the distri#t #ourts finding& -.&O9uoting

)/+C v. 'PA' E /&d 99' D&C& Cir& uoting Chrysler

Corp. v. Bron' 9 &S&


21/39

1 9= 1

4hi#h .ur.orts to #hange the immigration #lassifi#ation of o(er four million

unauthori0ed aliens is a mere general .oli#) statement& See infra $art III&C&9&

6. The Court also held that DA$A is not exem.t from A$A noti#e1and1#omment as a rule of internal agen#) .ro#edure& -.&O919; f. D-2 +r& E'


22/39

1 9E 1

authori0ation&, -.&O9@ >footnotes omitted?; f. 6ivotofs!y e# rel. 6ivotofs!y v.

3erry' No& 91E&S& 2une ' *It remains

true' of #ourse' that man) de#isions affe#ting foreign relations & & & reuire#ongressional a#tion& Congress ma) & & & establish an uniform %ule of

Naturali0ation & & & &, >uoting &S& C-NST&' Art& I' ??& The .anel also

noted that *Congress has de(elo.ed an intri#ate .ro#ess for unla4full)

.resent aliens to reside la4full) & & & in the nited States on a##ount of their

#hilds #iti0enshi.&, -.&O9@& The Court then reasoned:

Against that ba#kground' 4e 4ould ex.e#t to find an ex.li#itdelegation of authorit) to im.lement DA$Aa .rogram thatmakes & million other4ise remo(able aliens eligible for la4ful.resen#e' 4ork authori0ation' and asso#iated benefitsbut nosu#h .ro(ision exists&

-.&O99 >#iting *+A v. Bron & $illiamson "o,ao Corp.' =?

4as merel) *a definitional .ro(ision&, -.&O99; see -.&O99 n&E >uoting

$hitman v. Am. "ru!ing Assos.1 0n.' =9 &S& =B' E >


23/39

1 9B 1

!ith *no s.e#ifi# statutor) basis for DA$A', the 6xe#uti(e #an onl)

*suggestPQ that its authorit) is grounded in histori#al .ra#ti#e&, -.&O99& +ut

histori#al .ra#ti#e does not su..ort DA$A& States +r& 1=@& And' regardless'histori#al .ra#ti#e *does not' b) itself' #reate .o4er&, -.&O99 >#itations and

internal uotation marks omitted?&

B. T)e Co"% Co%%e+#, ee%!ne( )a APAsI%%e&e%s!6!#!, an( )e Ba#an+e o *a%s Fa&o%Ma!na!n!n )e Sa"s ;"o.

The sta) .anels rulings on irre.arable harm also #onfirm that the distri#t

#ourt did not abuse its dis#retion b) entering a .reliminar) inFun#tion& -.&O9=;

f. D-2 +r& =@1=& This Court #orre#tl) ruled that the *PtQhe states ha(e

sho4n, the) 4ill be *substantiall) inFurePdQ, if DA$A takes effe#t& -.&O9=&

*DA$A benefi#iaries, #ould *a..l) for dri(ers li#enses and other benefits'

and it 4ould be diffi#ult for the states to retra#t those benefits or re#ou. their

#osts e(en if the) 4on on the merits&, -.&O9=& No #om.arable inFur) 4ill befall

Defendants: *e(en under the inFun#tion' D3S #an #hoose 4hom to remo(e

first', and *the go(ernment #an resume 4ork if it .re(ails on the merits&,

-.&O9=& And this Courts ruling that *PtQhe .ubli# interest fa(ors maintenan#e

of the inFun#tion, #onfirms that the distri#t #ourt did not abuse its dis#retion

in #orre#tl) rea#hing the same #on#lusion& -.&O9=&

C. T)e Co"% Co%%e+#, Ree+e( )e E


24/39

1 9 1

im.lementation of DA$A 4ould undermine the #onstitutional im.erati(e of

a uniform %ule of Naturali0ation and Congresss instru#tion that the

immigration la4s of the nited States should be enfor#ed (igorousl) anduniformly&, -.&O9E& And *there is a substantial likelihood that a .artial

inFun#tion 4ould be ineffe#ti(e be#ause DA$A benefi#iaries 4ould be free to

mo(e bet4een states&, -.&O9E& Moreo(er' although Defendants raised a

geogra.hi#1s#o.e obFe#tion in seeking a stay' the) did not raise it 4hen

o..osing the .reliminar) inFun#tion belo4& A##ordingl)' the) forfeited it&

States +r& =1==; see1 e.g.' United States v. Mallis ' EB /&


25/39

1 9 1

The *underl)ing issue, in this la4suit is not *the order in 4hi#h non1

#iti0ens 4ithout do#umentation must be remo(ed from the nited States&,

-.&O=th Cir&


26/39

1 9?& /rom this' the dissent reasons that the onl) *4a)s non1#iti0ens

ma) gain la4ful status, are #odified *se.aratel) through &S&C&

9


27/39

1 *$%C-L,? 4as ex.ressl) #alled a *status, b)

multi.le #ourts& Congress no4 uses a different #lassifi#ationthe one at issue

hereand 4ithholds go(ernment benefits from aliens 4ho are not *la4full)

.resent&, &S&C& 9E99>b?>


28/39

1 +?& %e(o#abilit)

#annot be the tou#hstone for 4hether the 6xe#uti(e has taken a#tionre(ie4able under the A$A& States +r&


29/39

1 for instan#e' if the 6xe#uti(e is able to sho4 that the rele(ant

de#ision trul) is #ommitted to its dis#retion b) la4?& Nor is the dissents

imagined s#enario grounded in an) histor) of a State sho4ing interest in

laun#hing la4suits against indi(idual grants of deferred a#tion&

C. T)e !ssen In+o%%e+#, Con+#"(e( )a APA !( NoRe="!%e No!+e an( Coen O$.921-25.

The dissent in#orre#tl) #on#luded that DA$A is a mere general statement

of .oli#)' exem.t from noti#e and #omment& -.&O


30/39

1


31/39

1


32/39

1


33/39

1 -.&On&9@9?; e.g.' %-A&99&

The dissent also alleged that the distri#t #ourts #on#lusions 4ere tainted

b) *self1sele#tion bias,the .ossibilit) that those 4ho do not meet DACAs

eligibilit) #riteria 4ill not a..l)& -.&O


34/39

1 =th Cir& 9=?; see States +r& =1E& !here an agen#)s *guidan#e do#ument, is follo4ed in *standard

#ases', it is a substanti(e rule& en. 'le. Co. v. 'PA'


35/39

1


36/39

1 @ 1

2AM6S D & *+DD, CALD!6LL Attorne) General of Louisiana

$AL %& L6$AG6

Go(ernor of Maine

+ILL SC36TT6 Attorne) General for the $eo.le ofMi#higan

D%6! SND6% Counsel for the Go(ernor ofMississi..i

TIM-T3 C & /-

Attorne) General of Montana

D-G $6T6%S-N Attorne) General of Nebraska

ADAM $AL LAALT Attorne) General of Ne(ada

%-+6%T C& ST6$36NS Counsel for the Go(ernor of NorthCarolina

!AN6 ST6N6326M Attorne) General of North Dakota

MIC3A6L D6! IN6 Attorne) General of -hio

6%IC 6& M%$3 Co1#ounsel for the State of -hio

6& SC-TT $%ITT

Attorne) General of -klahoma

ALAN ! ILS-N Attorne) General of South Carolina

MA%T 2& 2ACKL6 Attorne) General of South Dakota



37/39

1 9 1

36%+6%T SLAT6% IIIAttorne) General and %e.orter ofTennessee

S6AN D& %66S

Attorne) General of tah

$AT%ICK M-%%IS6 Attorne) General of !est "irginia

+%AD D& SC3IM6L Attorne) General of !is#onsin



38/39

1 < 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I #ertif) the ser(i#e of this do#ument b) 6C/ or email on 2une 9'


39/39

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

9& I #ertif) that >9? reuired .ri(a#) reda#tions ha(e been made' =th Cir&

%&

supplemental brief for appellees - texas v. united states

Documents