SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(US)(ca6) 146

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Arizona – Appellant
Versus
Biden – Respondent



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; CHRIS │ MAGNUS, in his official capacity as 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. │ │ ┘

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

Argued: June 10, 2022

Decided and Filed: July 5, 2022

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

COUNSEL ARGUED: Daniel Tenny, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Daniel Tenny, Michael Shih, Sean R. Janda, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Benjamin M. Flowers, Sylvia May Mailman, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, No. 22-3272 Arizona, et al. v. Biden, et al. Page 2

Columbus, Ohio, Drew C. Ensign, OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Phoenix, Arizona, Christian B. Corrigan, OFFICE OF THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Helena, Montana, for Appellees. Daniel R. Suvor, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, California, Gina M. D’Andrea, IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

SUTTON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MOORE and COLE, JJ., joined. SUTTON, C.J. (pp. 23–28), also delivered a separate concurring opinion. _________________

OPINION _________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. In September 2021, 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. Our court granted the National Government’s request for a stay pending appeal and ordered expedited briefing and argument. We now reverse the distri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top