Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2021

City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:19-cv-04717
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Judge Hamilton stayed three related cases pending other litigation.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the three related cases, including the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, La Clinica de La Raza, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the other parties identified in the captions.

What happened

City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services involved three related cases about the public charge rule and related litigation.

The court noted that 13 states were seeking to intervene in Supreme Court proceedings involving the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding a preliminary injunction against enforcing the rule. Fourteen other states were seeking to intervene in separate Illinois litigation to reopen a final judgment that had vacated the rule.

Judge Phyllis Hamilton stayed all three cases until those proceedings were resolved, terminated all pending motions, and required a joint status report within 14 days after the later decision.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 4:19-cv-04717
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
May 26, 2021

Background

The order addressed three related cases: Case Nos. 19-cv-04717-PJH, 19-cv-04975-PJH, and 19-cv-04980-PJH. The parties in the lowest-numbered case filed a status report about ongoing appellate and Supreme Court proceedings concerning the public charge rule.

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed this court’s preliminary injunction, which barred enforcement of the public charge rule. Thirteen states had moved to intervene in the Ninth Circuit and then moved to intervene directly in the Supreme Court; that Supreme Court motion remained pending. Separately, 14 states were attempting to intervene in litigation before the Northern District of Illinois, where the district court had vacated the public charge rule. Those states sought intervention to reopen the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits certain forms of relief from a judgment.

Ruling

Based on the pending litigation involving the 13 states and the separate Illinois litigation involving the 14 states, the court ordered that the three cases be stayed pending resolution of that ongoing litigation. The court also ordered that all pending motions be terminated. The parties must file a joint status statement within 14 days after the Supreme Court decides the 13 states’ motion to intervene or the Northern District of Illinois decides the 14 states’ motion to intervene and reopen the final judgment, whichever occurs later. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.