Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 19, 2021

The City of New York v. Whitaker

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:18-cv-06474
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureImmigration
In one sentence

In The City of New York v. Whitaker, Judge Ramos granted the parties’ joint request to pause proceedings for 30 days after the Second Circuit issues its mandate.

Who this affects

The stay affected the federal defendants, the state plaintiffs, and the City of New York by temporarily pausing proceedings concerning the disputed grant conditions for 30 days after the Second Circuit’s mandate.

What happened

The City of New York v. Whitaker concerns challenges to immigration-related conditions attached to federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding for several fiscal years. The opinion says the court had previously ruled for plaintiffs on the 2017 conditions, but the Second Circuit later reversed that ruling; challenges involving later funding years remained pending.

All parties jointly asked the court to pause the proceedings for 30 days after the Second Circuit issued its mandate. They said the pause would give the Department of Justice additional time to review the disputed funding conditions and would preserve the current situation while conserving court and party resources.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ request to stay the case for 30 days. This order paused the proceedings; it did not decide the pending challenges to the funding conditions.

The detailed version

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

Case
The City of New York v. Whitaker · No. 1:18-cv-06474
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 19, 2021

Background

The parties’ filing concerned challenges to conditions attached to Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funding for fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. The opinion states that the challenged conditions were immigration-related. It also states that the court previously entered partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the 2017 conditions, but the Second Circuit reversed that decision on February 26, 2020. Challenges involving the 2018 conditions remained pending before the district court, and stipulations concerning the 2018, 2019, and 2020 funding remained in effect.

The parties later stipulated to dismissal of petitions asking the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit proceedings. The Second Circuit then directed the parties to explain why its mandate should not issue. In response, all parties jointly asked the district court to hold the proceedings in abeyance—temporarily pause them—for 30 days after the Second Circuit issued its mandate.

Parties’ position and requested relief

The parties said that a 30-day pause would give the Department of Justice additional time to review the grant conditions. They also argued that the pause would maintain the status quo and conserve judicial and party resources. The request was presented jointly by the federal defendants, the state plaintiffs, and the City of New York.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request to stay the case for 30 days. The order did not resolve the merits of the challenges to the grant conditions, dismiss any claims, or enter judgment. It was an ancillary case-management ruling that temporarily paused the proceedings.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because the court granted a temporary stay rather than deciding the underlying legality of the funding conditions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.