DOJ Drums Up Second Threat to a Circuit Court Over DACA Deadline
The Department of Justice is threatening SCOTUS action if the Ninth Circuit fails to reach a decision by Oct. 31 in a pending DACA case.
October 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The Department of Justice has imposed an Oct. 31 deadline on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide a DACA case, marking the second time it's taken such an action this year.
In a letter sent to the Ninth Circuit Wednesday, Main Justice wrote it will “petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari” to review a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California if the deadline is not met. The underlying case involves a decision allowing the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy to proceed nationwide.
The injunction calls for the Department of Homeland Security “to keep in place a discretionary policy of non-enforcement that no one contends is required by federal law and that DHS has determined is unlawful and should be discontinued,” wrote DOJ litigation counsel Mark Stern.
“The district court's order requires the government to indefinitely tolerate—and, indeed, affirmative sanction— an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens pursuant to the DACA policy,” he added.
Read the letter:
The instance marks Main Justice's second threat of SCOTUS intervention against a circuit court this year over DACA enforcement. On June 14, the department threatened to go to SCOTUS if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit didn't rule on the government's effort to halt a nationwide injunction restricting the department's power to deny sanctuary city funding.
The underlying case before the Ninth Circuit concluded on Jan. 9, with the court ordering DACA to proceed pending resolution of the litigation. The Supreme Court declined to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in February before judgment. The high court, however, had “assumed the [Ninth Circuit] would 'proceed expeditiously to decide the case.'”
The Ninth Circuit heard the most recent oral arguments in this case on May 15.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly criticized the Ninth Circuit, and judges in general, for what he sees as judicial overreach. That's included decisions on DACA, the Trump administration's travel ban, and last week's Second Circuit decision allowing the deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a suit over a 2020 census question on immigration status.
Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event Monday, a conservative group sympathetic to the Trump administration's policies, Sessions repeated his oft-spoken criticism of nationwide injunctions as example of what he described as “judicial encroachment.”
Since President Donald Trump was elected, Sessions said, 27 district courts have issued these injunctions. The Supreme Court declined the Justice Department's invitation, last term in the travel ban litigation, to curtail the power of federal trial judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
“Courts ignore these constitutional limits at their peril,” warned Sessions. He said any judges overstepping boundaries makes him or her open to criticism as any other political leader “and the same calls for their replacement.”
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 AllHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 2Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 3Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 4Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 5Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
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