No. 20-962

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-21
Status: Dismissed
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-procedure administrative-rulemaking homeland-security immigration-law immigration-nationality-act inadmissibility notice-and-comment public-charge standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA SocialSecurity DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility are proper parties to challenge the final rule

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., an alien is “inadmissible” if, “in the opinion of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, [the alien] is likely at any time to become a public charge.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). Following notice-and-comment rulemaking, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated a final rule interpreting the statutory term “public charge” and establishing a framework by which DHS personnel are to assess whether an alien is likely to become a public charge. The questions presented are: 1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule. 2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious. (I)

Docket Entries

2021-03-09
Joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-03-09
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2021-02-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)

Attorneys

City and County of San Francisco
Sara Jennifer EisenbergSan Francisco City Attorney's Office, Respondent
Sara Jennifer EisenbergSan Francisco City Attorney's Office, Respondent
State of Washington
Noah Guzzo PurcellOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Noah Guzzo PurcellOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Petitioner
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Petitioner