Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Department of Homeland Security v. New York
 | |
| Department of Homeland Security v. New York | |
| Docket number: 20-449 | |
| Term: 2021 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Important dates | |
| Dismissed: March 9, 2021 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett | |
Department of Homeland Security v. New York was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving judicial review of administrative agency decisionmaking and who has standing, the legal authority to challenge agency actions in federal court. At issue was whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and federal immigration law when it issued its 2019 final rule that expanded the definition of who qualifies as a public charge, a category of people inadmissible to the United States.[1]
Opponents of the rule argued that DHS violated the Immigration and Nationality Act with its redefinition of public charge.[1] DHS argued that it stayed within its legal authority when it made the rule and that the groups who brought lawsuits against it did not have the legal right to do so.[2]
Scott Harris, the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, dismissed the case on March 9, 2021, following a joint request from the Joe Biden (D) administration and the groups opposing the DHS rule.[3] The case had been scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2021-2022 term.
"1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule.
2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.[4]
Why it matters: This case provides an example of federal courts applying the arbitrary-or-capricious test under the APA.
Department of Homeland Security v. New York came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.[1]
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in these cases:
- March 9, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court clerk agreed to dismiss the case.[3]
- February 22, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 7, 2020: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- August 4, 2020: The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the DHS rule likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws.
Background
U.S. Department of Homeland Security issues rule about immigrants likely to become a public charge
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule in August 2019 that expanded the definition of who qualifies as a public charge, which would allow the agency to keep more people from entering the United States on those grounds.[1] The federal public charge restriction on entry into the United States has existed for over 100 years and applies to those the federal government determines would be likely to depend on public assistance after coming into the country.[5]
New York, other states, and nonprofit organizations sue, arguing that the public charge rule was illegal
New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New York City, and five nonprofit organizations that provide legal and social services to noncitizens filed lawsuits challenging the DHS public charge rule.[1] The lawsuits claimed that DHS failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test derived from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That test instructs courts reviewing agency actions to invalidate any that they find to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."[1]
The district court ruled that the states and the nonprofits had standing, the legal grounds to challenge the DHS rule in federal court.[1] It also held that the rule was likely contrary to federal law and that DHS likely failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test when it issued the rule.[1] The district court agreed to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions, which blocked the rule from going into effect while the legal challenges worked their way through the court system.[1]
DHS asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay, pause, the nationwide injunction against enforcing the rule, and the court granted that request in January 2020. Then the case went before the 2nd Circuit.[1]
2nd Circuit upholds district court ruling against DHS rule
On August 4, 2020, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court that DHS likely failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test and likely violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it issued the public charge rule. However, it limited the scope of the district court's nationwide injunction to apply only to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.[1]
The court said, "We have no doubt that the law, as it stands today, permits district courts to enter nationwide injunctions, and agree that such injunctions may be an appropriate remedy in certain circumstances – for example, where only a single case challenges the action or where multiple courts have spoken unanimously on the issue. The issuance of unqualified nationwide injunctions is a less desirable practice where, as here, numerous challenges to the same agency action are being litigated simultaneously in district and circuit courts across the country. It is not clear to us that, where contrary views could be or have been taken by courts of parallel or superior authority, entitled to determine the law within their own geographical jurisdictions, the court that imposes the most sweeping injunction should control the nationwide legal landscape."[1]
Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
DHS appealed the ruling from the 2nd Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. The agency argued in its petition that the public charge rule "represents a 'plainly permissible' exercise of the Executive Branch’s broad authority" in the immigration policy area.[2] DHS also argued that that the states, city, and nonprofit organizations who challenged the rule did not have legal standing to file a lawsuit under the APA.[2]
Questions presented
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security presented the following questions to the court:
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
The case was dismissed before oral argument.[3]
Outcome
Scott Harris, the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, dismissed the case on March 9, 2021, following a joint request from the Joe Biden (D) administration and the groups opposing the DHS rule.[3]
Commentary about the case
- Case could become moot before oral argument: Adam Liptak, writing for The New York Times, said that the case could become moot before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the fall because "Biden has called for prompt review of the measure. Among his goals, he said, was 'to reduce fear and confusion among impacted communities.'"[7] If Biden has DHS repeal the challenged rule, there may no longer be a live case for the court to resolve.
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.[8]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Department of Homeland Security v. New York (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Department of Homeland Security v. New York
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 Casetext, "United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security," August 4, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Department of Homeland Security v. New York, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," October 7, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 SCOTUSblog, "Cases testing Trump’s “public charge” immigration rule are dismissed," March 9, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Department of Homeland Security v. New York, Question presented," February 22, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Public Charge Fact Sheet," accessed February 24, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Abortion Referrals and Immigration," February 22, 2021
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
