DOJ, With 'Regret,' Says Shutdown Complicates Compliance With Deadlines
Justice Department lawyers are seeking a filing extension in an immigration case against Miami-Dade County.
December 26, 2018 at 02:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department is asking federal courts nationwide to pause proceedings in its cases, saying the government shutdown has restricted the ability of lawyers to perform their duties, including meeting court-ordered deadlines and communicating with attorneys across agencies.
Justice Department lawyers are using the same language in their requests that federal judges delay action until federal funding has been restored. The shutdown began Dec. 21 in a dispute about funding for the Trump administration's border wall, and there's no end in sight.
“Although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the court and the other litigants, the government hereby moves for a stay of all proceedings in this case until Department of Justice attorneys are permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in court papers filed Wednesday in courts across the country.
The court papers said the Justice Department will notify judges “as soon as Congress has appropriated funds for the department. The government requests that, at that point, all current deadlines for the parties be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations.” DOJ lawyers are telling judges: “The department does not know when funding will be restored by Congress.”
The shutdown prohibits agency lawyers from working, save for limited circumstances that include “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,” according to the notices DOJ filed Wednesday. The federal courts themselves said they have sufficient funding to remain open for at least three weeks.
In Miami, the Justice Department asked for a filing extension in a case involving a man suing Miami-Dade County, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency over his detention. Attorneys for the plaintiffs from the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, University of Miami School of Law's Immigration Clinic and Miami-based Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt did not immediately respond to the government's request, according to DOJ's filing.
The shutdown could have real-world implications in cases involving any asylum seekers who were turned away from the U.S. following new Trump administration rules that rejected certain claims based on domestic violence and fear of gang violence.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington last week ordered the government to return to the U.S. any asylum-seeker who had been removed based on the new regulations. Sullivan, who issued a permanent injunction blocking the new rules, ordered government agencies to meet with the plaintiffs lawyers by the day after Christmas “to develop a schedule and plan to carry out this portion of the injunction.”
Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday they could not meet the seven-day deadline to meet with the plaintiffs teams from various ACLU offices. DOJ said the ACLU declined to take a position on the request to stay the deadline.
Sullivan issued an order late Wednesday pausing his injunction due to the government shutdown.
There was a different outcome in another high-visibility case in California. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the Justice Department's request to pause proceedings in a suit challenging the Trump administration's addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Seeborg did not give a reason for his ruling, which keeps in place the Jan. 7 trial date.
Plaintiffs lawyers in some cases are agreeing by consent to pause deadlines and court orders. That was the case in one dispute over the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as the acting U.S. attorney general. Thomas Goldstein of Washington's Goldstein & Russell, agreed to the stay of proceedings.
ACLU lawyers consented to pause a Jan. 8 deadline to submit settlement conference statements in a Freedom of Information Act suit involving federal surveillance of Muslim communities in Northern California. A settlement hearing remains set for Jan. 15.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida Supreme Court Paves Way for Attorney Fees Over $100k in Land Dispute
Miami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readHit Song Ignites Multimillion-Dollar Legal Battle in South Florida
Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250