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

State of New York v. United States Department of Justice

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:18-cv-06471
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureImmigration
In one sentence

In State of New York v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Ramos granted the parties’ joint request to pause proceedings for 30 days.

Who this affects

The parties in the proceedings, including the state plaintiffs, the City of New York, and the United States Department of Justice defendants, were affected by the 30-day pause.

What happened

State of New York v. United States Department of Justice concerns challenges to immigration-related conditions attached to federal justice grants. The opinion also refers to a related case brought by the City of New York.

The parties jointly asked the court to pause the proceedings for 30 days after the expected issuance of an appellate mandate. They said the pause would give the Department of Justice additional time to review the grant conditions and preserve resources.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ request to stay the case for 30 days. This order did not decide the underlying challenges to the grant conditions.

The detailed version

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

Case
State of New York v. United States Department of Justice · No. 1:18-cv-06471
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 19, 2021

Background

The case challenges conditions that the United States Department of Justice placed on Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funding for fiscal years 2017 through 2020. The opinion also refers to a related case brought by the City of New York.

The court had previously entered partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the 2017 conditions, but the Second Circuit later reversed that decision. The Second Circuit’s mandate had been stayed while the plaintiffs pursued review in the Supreme Court. The parties later stipulated to dismissal of the Supreme Court petitions, and the Second Circuit directed them to explain why its mandate should not issue.

The parties also told the court that disputes concerning the 2018 conditions remained pending and that agreements concerning the 2018, 2019, and 2020 funding remained in effect.

Request

All parties jointly asked the court to hold the proceedings in abeyance, meaning to pause them, for 30 days after the Second Circuit issued its mandate. They explained that this would give the Department of Justice additional time to review the grant conditions and would preserve the court’s and the parties’ resources.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ request to stay the case for 30 days. The order addressed only the pause in proceedings; it did not decide the pending challenges to the grant 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.