UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF │ OHIO, │ Plaintiffs-Appellees, │ │ No. 22-3272 v. > │ │ JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President │ of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF │ HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; │ ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as │ Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; TROY │ MILLER, in his official capacity as Acting │ Commissioner of United States Customs and Border │ Protection; TAE D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as │ Acting Director of United States Immigration and │ Customs Enforcement; UR JADDOU, in her official │ capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and │ Immigration Services, │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘

On Motion for Stay. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton; No. 3:21-cv-00314—Michael J. Newman, District Judge.

Argued: April 7, 2022

Decided and Filed: April 12, 2022

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE and COLE, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Michael Shih, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Sylvia May Mailman, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON MOTION FOR STAY AND REPLY: Michael Shih, No. 22-3272 Arizona, et al. v. Biden, et al. Page 2

Sean R. Janda, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. ON RESPONSE: Sylvia May Mailman, Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, Drew Curtis Ensign, OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Phoenix, Arizona, Christian B. Corrigan, OFFICE OF THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Helena, Montana, for Appellees.

SUTTON, C.J., (pp. 2–17; app. 22–24), delivered the order of the court in which MOORE and COLE, JJ., joined. SUTTON, C.J. (pp. 18–21), also delivered a separate concurring opinion. _________________

ORDER _________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Last fall, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum to his deputies outlining the Department’s immigration enforcement priorities and policies. Arizona, Montana, and Ohio filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio to enjoin its implementation. The district court issued a “nationwide preliminary injunction,” applicable to all 50 States, blocking the Department from relying on the priorities and policies in the memorandum in making certain arrest, detention, and removal decisions. The National Government asks for a stay pending appeal. For the reasons that follow, we grant the stay.

I.

Federal law gives the National Government considerable authori