Florida AG Drops Appeal Over Biden's Immigration Policies
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Gov. Ron DeSantis have long criticized the Biden administration's handling of undocumented immigrants and border security.
December 13, 2021 at 12:41 PM
4 minute read
As Gov. Ron DeSantis launched another broadside against the federal government's immigration policies, the state said it is dropping a legal challenge against the Biden administration over immigration directives issued early this year.
Attorney General Ashley Moody's office filed a motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to dismiss the case, saying it is moot because the Biden administration issued "superseding" policies dealing with people entering the country illegally.
Moody took the case to the Atlanta-based appeals court after U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell in May rejected the state's request for a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration.
Meanwhile, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys this month argued that a federal judge in Pensacola should dismiss a separate lawsuit that Moody filed in September challenging federal immigration policies. U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell has not ruled on that motion.
Moody and Gov. Ron DeSantis have long criticized the Biden administration's handling of undocumented immigrants and border security, and DeSantis on Friday ratcheted up the criticism by announcing a series of legislative proposals.
During a news conference in Jacksonville, DeSantis called for state lawmakers to "fight against the Biden border crisis" by passing legislation that, for example, would expand a law targeting so-called sanctuary cities and bolster efforts to verify the legal eligibility of workers.
As DeSantis runs for reelection next year, and is widely speculated as a potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate, immigration could become a high-profile issue during the legislative session that starts Jan. 11.
The case at the 11th Circuit focused heavily on memos issued Jan. 20 and Feb. 18 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement about immigration enforcement. The memos set priorities for enforcement, including focusing on immigrants who pose national-security threats, have been convicted of aggravated felonies or have been convicted of gang-related activity.
Moody contended that the directives violated federal immigration laws and what is known as the Administrative Procedure Act.
But Honeywell ruled in May that the memos were "interim policies" that were not final actions by the federal agencies and, as a result, were not subject to judicial review. She also wrote that the memos prioritized immigration-enforcement decisions, such as focusing on cases involving national security, border security and public safety.
A panel of the appeals court held a hearing in September and appeared skeptical of Florida's arguments. But it did not issue a ruling, and the motion filed Friday said the case should be dismissed because of subsequent immigration guidelines issued by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The motion also asked for "vacatur" of Honeywell's decision, which would essentially set it aside.
"In this suit, Florida challenged certain interim immigration enforcement policies issued by DHS and sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied," the motion said. "Because DHS has issued superseding policies, Florida now moves under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure … to dismiss its appeal as moot and for vacatur of the district court's decision."
The appeals court had not signed off on the motion as of Monday morning.
While the appeal was pending, Moody filed the additional lawsuit in Pensacola. That case accused the Biden administration of violating immigration laws by releasing many undocumented immigrants who cross the Southern border.
The lawsuit said the "government is not free to ignore the clear commands of Congress" and alleged that some undocumented immigrants coming to Florida could be gang members, drug traffickers and other criminals.
But in a motion filed Dec. 3, Department of Justice attorneys argued the lawsuit should be dismissed on a series of grounds, including that immigration officials have discretion to set policies.
"Because immigration policy affects many complex and important areas, Congress constructed an immigration enforcement system whose 'principal feature' is the 'broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,'" the motion said, partially quoting legal precedent. "This reflects the reality — embodied in every presidential administration's policies for decades — that officials must deploy limited resources according to priorities set by policymakers."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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