State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-04975
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Hamilton requested briefing on how a Ninth Circuit decision affects two claims.
The State of California and the other plaintiffs, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the other defendants, were required to address the requested briefing about the plaintiffs’ first and fourth causes of action.
What happened
State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerns challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s public-charge rule. The Ninth Circuit had stayed this court’s preliminary injunction and found that the defendants were likely to succeed on important issues involving the rule.
The court asked the parties to brief whether that Ninth Circuit decision controls whether the plaintiffs plausibly stated their first and fourth claims under the federal rule for dismissing legally insufficient claims. It also asked whether the Ninth Circuit’s findings are binding and whether the court should wait for a later Ninth Circuit decision before ruling.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton did not decide the motion to dismiss or the two claims in this order. She ordered the defendants to file an opening brief within seven days and the plaintiffs to respond within fourteen days, with both briefs limited to ten pages.
The detailed version
- State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · No. 4:19-cv-04975
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 9, 2020
Background
The order addresses the possible effect of a published Ninth Circuit motions-panel decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit had stayed this court’s preliminary injunction concerning the public-charge final rule. The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the defendants were likely to succeed on the merits because the rule’s definition of “public charge” was consistent with the relevant statutes and the Department of Homeland Security’s rulemaking was not arbitrary or capricious.
The parties had briefed the possible effect of that decision on the motion to dismiss. The court discussed the law-of-the-circuit doctrine, under which published Ninth Circuit decisions generally bind the circuit and district courts until overruled, and the law-of-the-case doctrine, which can limit reconsideration of issues decided earlier in the same case.
Requested briefing
The court requested supplemental briefing concerning the plaintiffs’ first and fourth causes of action. It asked the parties to address:
- Whether, and to what extent, the Ninth Circuit motions panel’s conclusion that the defendants were likely to succeed on the merits binds the court when deciding whether the plaintiffs stated claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court noted that Rule 12(b)(6) asks whether a complaint states a plausible claim and does not require proof at the pleading stage that the claim will ultimately succeed.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit’s findings that the public-charge rule’s definition was reasonable under the second step of the Chevron framework and that the Department of Homeland Security’s rulemaking was not arbitrary or capricious qualify as law of the circuit or law of the case. The court also asked whether those findings involved mixed questions of law and fact, and, if so, what deference the court should give the motions-panel decision.
- Whether the court should delay ruling on the first and fourth claims until the Ninth Circuit’s merits panel issues an opinion, and whether those claims would be reinstated if the merits-panel opinion disagreed with the motions-panel decision.
Order
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the defendants to file their opening brief within seven days after entry of the order and the plaintiffs to file their response within fourteen days. Each brief could be no longer than ten pages, and the parties were directed to limit their discussion to the first and fourth causes of action.
This order requested briefing; it did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the first and fourth causes of action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.