Case Law Texas v. United States

Texas v. United States

Document Cited Authorities (184) Cited in (554) Related (5)

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

I.
A.

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...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2018
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2020
Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
"...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 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas – 2021
Earl v. Boeing Co.
"...‘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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2017
Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
"...relief in a particular case." Richmond Tenants Org., Inc. v. Kemp , 956 F.2d 1300, 1308 (4th Cir. 1992) ; see also Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that the "Constitution vests the District Court with ‘the judicial Power of the United States,’ " which "ext..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 109-6, August 2021 – 2021
Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
"...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..."
Document | Vol. 95 Núm. 5, May 2020 – 2020
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
"...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..."
Document | Núm. 36-1, July 2021 – 2021
Punishing with impunity: the legacy of risk classification assessment in immigration detention
"...of families, including many f‌leeing persecutions, through its enforcement priorities. Id 23. See generally Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (aff‌irming a challenge brought by Texas and twenty-f‌ive other states seeking to block the implementation of DAPA and expansion o..."
Document | Núm. 79-1, October 2018 – 2018
State Standing for Equality
"...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. Tr..."
Document | Núm. 36-2, January 2022 – 2022
Framing and contesting unauthorized work
"...the program because the court determined the Obama administration violated the APA when it implemented DAPA. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 146–49 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court , 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, DAPA never went into effect. 293. ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Administrative Procedure Act Litigation: The Changing Regulatory Landscape, the Role of Industry, and Emerging Issues
"...1213-25 (Thomas, J., concurring). 26 Pet’r’s Br. i, id. (No. 16-273). 27 See 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017). 28 See Texas v. United States, 2015 WL 1540022, at *6-7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015); Texas v. United States, 2016 WL 7852331, at *1-3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2016). 29 See Texas v. United States, 8..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
State Attorneys General and the Upcoming Biden Administration
"...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...."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2016
The Trump Administration: Change By Executive Action and Inaction
"...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: Guida..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Vacate TRO on Trump’s Immigration Order
"...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 Jung..."
Document | LexBlog United States – 2024
Upset in the 11th Hour: Corporate Transparency Act Halted, for Now
"...but extends across the country. It is not beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.” 809 F.3d 134, 188. The Reasoning While the injunction is only preliminary, the court determined that “[d]ue to the fast-approaching deadline for reporting ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

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

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 109-6, August 2021 – 2021
Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
"...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..."
Document | Vol. 95 Núm. 5, May 2020 – 2020
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
"...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..."
Document | Núm. 36-1, July 2021 – 2021
Punishing with impunity: the legacy of risk classification assessment in immigration detention
"...of families, including many f‌leeing persecutions, through its enforcement priorities. Id 23. See generally Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (aff‌irming a challenge brought by Texas and twenty-f‌ive other states seeking to block the implementation of DAPA and expansion o..."
Document | Núm. 79-1, October 2018 – 2018
State Standing for Equality
"...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. Tr..."
Document | Núm. 36-2, January 2022 – 2022
Framing and contesting unauthorized work
"...the program because the court determined the Obama administration violated the APA when it implemented DAPA. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 146–49 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court , 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, DAPA never went into effect. 293. ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

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

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2018
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2020
Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
"...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 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas – 2021
Earl v. Boeing Co.
"...‘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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2017
Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
"...relief in a particular case." Richmond Tenants Org., Inc. v. Kemp , 956 F.2d 1300, 1308 (4th Cir. 1992) ; see also Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that the "Constitution vests the District Court with ‘the judicial Power of the United States,’ " which "ext..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

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

vLex

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

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Administrative Procedure Act Litigation: The Changing Regulatory Landscape, the Role of Industry, and Emerging Issues
"...1213-25 (Thomas, J., concurring). 26 Pet’r’s Br. i, id. (No. 16-273). 27 See 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017). 28 See Texas v. United States, 2015 WL 1540022, at *6-7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015); Texas v. United States, 2016 WL 7852331, at *1-3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2016). 29 See Texas v. United States, 8..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
State Attorneys General and the Upcoming Biden Administration
"...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...."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2016
The Trump Administration: Change By Executive Action and Inaction
"...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: Guida..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Vacate TRO on Trump’s Immigration Order
"...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 Jung..."
Document | LexBlog United States – 2024
Upset in the 11th Hour: Corporate Transparency Act Halted, for Now
"...but extends across the country. It is not beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.” 809 F.3d 134, 188. The Reasoning While the injunction is only preliminary, the court determined that “[d]ue to the fast-approaching deadline for reporting ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial