Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: February 23, 2022
Decided: June 15, 2022
Outcome
Dismissed
Vote
N/A
Majority
Per curiam

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on February 23, 2022.

In a per curiam ruling, the court dismissed the case as improvidently granted. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In March 2021, the Biden administration stopped defending litigation surrounding a Trump administration expansion of the public charge rule, a federal rule that governs the admission of immigrants into the United States. Afterward, several states, led by Arizona, attempted to intervene in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, City and County of San Fransisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2021), to defend the rule. The 9th Circuit denied the states' motion to intervene.[2] The states appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case limited to the question of whether states have the right to defend a rule after the federal government stops its defense.[3] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the right of an interested state to defend a rule drafted under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
  • The question presented: "Whether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend."[3][4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 15, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
    • February 23, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • October 29, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • June 18, 2021: The State of Arizona, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 8, 2021: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the State of Arizona's motion to intervene in the case.

    Background

    Public charge rule and 2019 rule change

    The public charge rule provides U.S. immigration officials with criteria to determine whether to grant immigrants a green card based on the likelihood they will become dependent on government assistance.

    In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Trump Administration promulgated a new version of the public charge rule (the "2019 rule"). Prior to a 2019 rule change, the governing public charge rule had been in effect since 1999 (the "1999 rule"). The 1999 rule defined a public charge as an alien who has become or is likely to become "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense."[5] Benefits considered for public charge purposes included 1) Supplemental Security Income (SSI); 2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); 3) state and local cash assistance programs (known as general assistance); and 4) programs, including Medicaid, that provided assistance for long-term institutional care.[6] The 2019 rule, among other revisions, expanded the list of benefits the government would consider for public charge purposes to include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 housing and rental assistance, federal housing subsidies, and nonemergency Medicaid benefits, in addition to the previous list. The 2019 rule also expanded the number of specific factors an immigration officer must consider when determining whether an applicant was likely to become a public charge. The final rule was published on August 14, 2019.[5][7]

    Litigation following rule change, U.S. government change in position

    Lawsuits in different federal jurisdictions followed the publication of the final 2019 rule, including in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York.[7] In Illinois, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck down the rule after finding it did not meet the requirements of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit stayed, or paused, the district court's ruling, allowing implementation of the rule to continue while the government appealed.[8]

    After the parties challenging the rule were successful in several cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court to step in and review the rule, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the 2nd Circuit case of Department of Homeland Security v. New York (2021) before dismissing the case pursuant to a joint request from the Biden administration and groups opposing the rule on March 9.

    The federal government's position on the rule changed after the Biden administration took office in January 2021. On February 2, President Joe Biden (D) ordered a review of the rule, after which the DHS stated that continued defense of the 2019 rule was not in the public interest. On March 9, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss its pending appeals in the 7th Circuit and Supreme Court, effectively ending the federal government's defense of the rule. Consequently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois's decision invalidating the rule went into effect on a nationwide scale and the DHS reverted to using the 1999 rule.[9][8]

    States' request to defend the rule

    After the DOJ stopped defending the 2019 rule on March 9, several states, led by Arizona, attempted to intervene to defend the rule in City and County of San Fransisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2021), a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.[2] The 9th Circuit denied the states' request to intervene, and the states appealed to the Supreme Court. The court agreed to review the case limited to the question of whether states have the right to defend a rule after the federal government stops its defense.[3]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:

    Question presented:
    “ Whether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.[3][10]

    [11]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[12]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[13]


    Outcome

    In a per curiam ruling, the court dismissed the case as improvidently granted. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.[1]

    Concurring opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

    In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ This case involves a regulation known as the Public Charge Rule, promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security in 2019. See 84 Fed. Reg. 41292 (2019). The Rule set out the test the Department planned to use to determine whether an applicant for admission into the country or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status is “likely at any time to become a public charge,” which would make him ineligible. 8 U. S. C. §1182(a)(4)(A). Several parties filed lawsuits arguing that the Rule was unlawful because it defined “public charge” too broadly.


    We granted certiorari in this case not to address the merits of that argument, but to decide whether the petitioners—13 States which support the Rule—should have been permitted to intervene in this litigation to defend the Rule’s legality in the Court of Appeals. Petitioners argue that the answer is yes, in light of the Government’s actions.

    When this and other suits challenging the Rule were first brought in 2019, the Government defended it. And when multiple lower courts, including the District Court here, found the Rule unlawful, the Government appealed those decisions. After a change in administrations, though, the Government reversed course and opted to voluntarily dismiss those appeals, leaving in place the relief already entered.

    A new administration is of course as a general matter entitled to do that. But the Government then took a further step. It seized upon one of the now-consent judgments against it—a final judgment vacating the Rule nationwide, issued in a different litigation—and leveraged it as a basis to immediately repeal the Rule, without using notice-and- comment procedures. ...

    These maneuvers raise a host of important questions. The most fundamental is whether the Government’s actions, all told, comport with the principles of administrative law. ...

    It has become clear that this mare’s nest could stand in the way of our reaching the question presented on which we granted certiorari, or at the very least, complicate our resolution of that question. I therefore concur in the Court’s dismissal of the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. But that resolution should not be taken as reflective of a view on any of the foregoing issues, or on the appropriate resolution of other litigation, pending or future, related to the 2019 Public Charge Rule, its repeal, or its replacement by a new rule. See Cook County v. Mayorkas, 340 F. R. D. 35 (ND Ill. 2021), appeal pending, No. 21–2561 (CA7); 87 Fed. Reg. 10571 (2022) (new proposed rule that would “implement a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule”).[11]

    		”
    —Justice John Roberts

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.


    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[14]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[15] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[16]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Supreme Court, Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California, decided June 15, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, City and County of San Fransisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, decided April 8, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California: Petition for Writ of Certiorari," accessed October 29, 2021
    4. ↑ Note: Petitioners presented two additional questions in the petition for writ of certiorari, but the court limited its review to the first question only.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Federal Register, "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," August 14, 2019
    6. ↑ U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, "Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," March 26, 1999
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Immigration and Public Charge," accessed November 1, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule: Litigation," accessed November 1, 2021
    9. ↑ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "SOPDD Letter to USCIS Interagency Partners on Public Charge," April 12, 2021
    10. ↑ Note: Petitioners presented two additional questions in the petition for writ of certiorari, but the court limited its review to the first question only.
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 23, 2022
    13. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 23, 2022
    14. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    15. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    16. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_v._City_and_County_of_San_Francisco,_California&oldid=9117204"