P.L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-01336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In P.L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Judge Carter ordered letter briefs on the effect of a Supreme Court decision on plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims.
The plaintiffs and defendants in P.L., et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.; the order required each side to submit briefing.
What happened
In P.L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the court addressed the next steps after an earlier order concerning the plaintiffs’ request to change the judgment.
The earlier order partly denied the request as to bond-hearing claims and put the request concerning Administrative Procedure Act claims on hold while the Supreme Court considered a related case. The Supreme Court has now issued its decision.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter brief by November 23, 2020, and the defendants to respond by December 7, 2020. This order did not decide the Administrative Procedure Act claims.
The detailed version
- P.L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 1:19-cv-01336
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
The court stated that, in an order dated March 13, 2020, it had partly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to bond-hearing claims. The court had also stayed, or put on hold, the portion of the motion concerning claims under the Administrative Procedure Act while the Supreme Court considered Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
The Supreme Court had since issued its decision in that case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in further detail or state the result of the earlier judgment.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to submit letter briefs addressing the Supreme Court’s decision and its impact on the court’s decision about the motion to alter judgment as to the Administrative Procedure Act claims. The plaintiffs’ letter was due November 23, 2020, and the defendants’ response was due December 7, 2020. The order did not grant or deny the pending motion and did not resolve the Administrative Procedure Act claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.