Docket for 20A150
|
| Mar 19 2021 | Application (20A150) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Mar 26 2021 | Response to application (20A150) requested by The Chief Justice, due Friday, April 9, 2021, by 5 p.m. ET. | | | | Apr 09 2021 | Response to application from respondents Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, et al. filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | Apr 09 2021 | Response to application from respondents Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. | | Proof of ServiceMain Document | | Apr 13 2021 | Reply of applicants Texas, et al. filed. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Apr 26 2021 | Application (20A150) referred to the Court. | | | | Apr 26 2021 | In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security promulgated through notice and comment a rule defining the term “public charge.” The District Court in this case vacated the rule nationwide, but that judgment was stayed pending DHS’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On March 9, 2021, following the change in presidential administration, DHS voluntarily dismissed that appeal, thereby dissolving the stay of the District Court’s judgment. And on March 15, DHS relied on the District Court’s now-effective judgment to remove the challenged rule from the Code of Federal Regulations without going through notice and comment rulemaking. Shortly after DHS had voluntarily dismissed its appeal, a group of States sought leave to intervene in the Court of Appeals. When that request was denied, the States filed an application for leave to intervene in this Court and for a stay of the District Court’s judgment. The States argue that DHS has prevented enforcement of the rule while insulating the District Court’s judgment from review. The States also contend that DHS has rescinded the rule without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. We deny the application, without prejudice to the States raising these and other arguments before the District Court, whether in a motion for intervention or otherwise. After the District Court considers any such motion, the States may seek review, if necessary, in the Court of Appeals, and in a renewed application in this Court. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this application. | | |
|