Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Arizona, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-17213, 19-17214, 19-35914 · judgment April 8, 2021
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Questions presented
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., an alien is "inadmissible" if, "in the opinion of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, [the alien] is likely at any time to become a public charge." 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(4)(A). Following notice-and-comment rulemaking, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated a final rule (the "Rule") interpreting the statutory term "public charge" and establishing a framework for applying it. Litigation about the Rule ensued, and the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits affirmed preliminary injunctions, while the Fourth Circuit initially reversed. The United States sought review in multiple cases, and this Court granted review of the Second Circuit's opinion. DHS v. New York, No. 20- 449 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021). But the United States suddenly announced it would no longer pursue its appeals. The result was to leave in place a partial grant of summary judgment and vacatur of the Rule in one district court, applying nationwide-evading this Court's review and the procedures of the APA. The Petitioning States quickly moved to intervene in the Ninth Circuit to protect their interests previously represented by the United States. The Ninth Circuit, however, denied the Petitioning States' motion. The questions presented are:
-
Whether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.
-
Whether the Rule is contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.
-
Alternatively, whether the decision below as to the Rule should be vacated as moot under Munsingwear. Limited to Question 1 presented by the petition DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Drew Curtis Ensign
Office of the Attorney General
For respondent
Sara Jennifer Eisenberg
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 4 conferences
Amicus briefs
3 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither)
Argument & decision
Argued February 23, 2022 — Mark Brnovich · Brian H. Fletcher · Helen H. Hong. Audio and transcript
Decided June 15, 2022. Opinion by Per Curiam.
Proceedings
- Jul 18 2022JUDGMENT ISSUED
- Jun 15 2022Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam. Roberts, C. J., with whom Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., join, concurring.
- Feb 23 2022Argued. For petitioners: Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For federal respondents: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Helen H. Hong, Deputy Solicitor General, San Diego, Cal.
- Feb 17 2022Letter of the Solicitor General updating on status of availability of NPRM text. (Distributed)
- Feb 11 2022Reply of petitioner Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 24 2022Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.
- Jan 19 2022Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.
- Jan 18 2022CIRCULATED
- Jan 12 2022Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara filed.
- Jan 12 2022Brief of State Respondents filed.
- Jan 12 2022Brief of Federal Respondents filed.
- Dec 21 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
- Dec 21 2021The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.
- Dec 21 2021The record from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Washington (Richland) is electronic and located on Pacer.
- Dec 20 2021Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.
- Dec 20 2021Brief amici curiae of Ohio, et al. filed.
- Dec 17 2021ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, February 23, 2022.
- Dec 17 2021Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed.
- Dec 14 2021Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Arizona, et al.
- Dec 13 2021Brief of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed.
- Dec 13 2021Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed)
- Oct 29 2021Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
- Oct 25 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.
- Oct 12 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
- Oct 04 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
- Sep 08 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Sep 08 2021Reply of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 23 2021Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Aug 23 2021Brief of respondents State of California et al. in opposition filed.
- Aug 23 2021Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco, et al. in opposition filed.
- Aug 23 2021Brief of respondents Washington et al. in opposition filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 12 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 23, 2021, for all respondents.
- Jul 09 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2021 to August 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 18 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2021)