UNITED STATES v. STATE (2024)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. STATE of Texas; Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas; Texas Department of Public Safety; Steven C. McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendants—Appellants,
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center; American Gateways; County of El Paso, Texas, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Steven C. McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety; Bill D. Hicks, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 34th District, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 24-50149

Decided: March 19, 2024

Before Richman, Chief Judge, Oldham, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny, Esq. (argued), Brian Boynton, Jean Lin, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Maxwell A. Baldi, Leif Eric Overvold, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Samuel M. Shapiro, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee United States. Cody Wofsy (argued), Spencer Amdur, Anand Balakrishnan, Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, NY, David A. Donatti, Adriana Cecilia Pinon, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Tamara Goodlette, Daniel Hatoum, Erin D. Thorn, Texas Civil Rights Project, Beyond Borders, Alamo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee American Gateways. Cody Wofsy, Spencer Amdur, Anand Balakrishnan, Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, NY, David A. Donatti, Adriana Cecilia Pinon, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Jo Anne Bernal, County Attorney's Office for the County of El Paso, El Paso, TX, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, El Paso County Attorney's Office, Civil Litigation Unit, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee County of El Paso, Texas. Cody Wofsy, Spencer Amdur, Anand Balakrishnan, Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, NY, Tamara Goodlette, Daniel Hatoum, Erin D. Thorn, Texas Civil Rights Project, Beyond Borders, Alamo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. Aaron Lloyd Nielson (argued), Joseph N. Mazzara, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Austin, TX, Munera Al-Fuhaid, Kyle Tebo, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, Amy Snow Hilton, Assistant Attorney General, Ryan Daniel Walters, Attorney, Susanna Dokupil, Heather Lee Dyer, Jacob Przada, Office of the Attorney General, Special Litigation Division, Austin, TX, Kateland R. Jackson, Joseph N. Mazzara, Coy Allen Westbrook, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants State of Texas, Greg Abbott, Texas Department of Public Safety, Steven C. McCraw. Francisco Javier Ortega, ScottHulse, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant Bill D. Hicks. William Jeffrey Olson, Esq., William J. Olson, P.C., Vienna, VA, for Amici Curiae America's Future, Gun Owners of America, Incorporated, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Presidential Coalition, Senior Citizens League, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Oral argument is scheduled on March 20, 2024, to consider the Appellants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. A majority of the panel has concluded that the administrative stay entered by a motions panel on March 2, 2024, should be lifted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the administrative stay of this appeal previously entered by a motions panel on March 2, 2024, is DISSOLVED.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that alters the status quo. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 429, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009). A stay preserves the status quo while an appellate court reviews the lawfulness of that alteration. Nken, 556 U.S. at 429, 129 S.Ct. 1749. Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States restored an administrative stay so our panel could review the State's request for emergency relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8. See United States v. Texas, No. 23A814, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2024 WL 1163923 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2024) (Mem.). I would leave that stay in place pending tomorrow's oral argument on the question.

PER CURIAM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law