September 15, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Texas v. U.S., 21-40618, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Costa, J. (Southwick, Graves, Costa), immigration, Administrative Procedure Act
    • Granting partial stay, pending appeal, of nationwide injunction entered by district court to enjoin the U.S. from relying on immigration enforcement priorities announced in DHS and ICE memos following President Biden’s inauguration.
    • The DHS and ICE memos announced interim enforcement priorities, announcing civil enforcement priority for individuals engaged in terrorism or espionage whose apprehension and custody are necessary to protect national security; individuals apprehended at the border who were not physically present in the U.S. prior to November 1, 2020; and incarcerated individuals who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and who are determined to pose a threat to public safety. The ICE memo requires agents to seek approval before pursuing an action against individuals not in one of these categories, subject to few exceptions. Texas and Louisiana brought a challenge to these enforcement priority memos as promulgated in violation of the APA. The district court issued a nationwide injunction (despite similar challenges brought by Florida and Arizona having been unsuccessful), enjoining the government “from enforcing and implementing” the enforcement guidelines laid out in the memos.
    • The Court outlined that “charging decisions are presumptively unreviewable” as enforcement decisions are discretionary decisions by the charging agency depending on the agency’s overall policies and decisions as to expenditure of finite resources. The Court did note, however, that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIA”) proscribed that discretion in two instances: taking into custody aliens convicted of aggravated felonies and certain “crimes of moral turpitude” after their sentences have been served, and detention and deportation of individuals against whom an order of removal has been issued.
    • Taking that framework into account, the Court noted, “Our main concern with the injunction is that we believe these IIRIRA provisions do not eliminate immigration officials’ ‘broad discretion’ to decide who should face enforcement action in the first place.” Accordingly, the Court held that the district court’s injunction should remain in place only “[t]o the extent the injunction prevents the Attorney General from relying on the memos to release those who are facing enforcement actions and fall within the mandatory detention provisions—for example, prisoners with qualifying convictions against whom ICE has lodged a detainer (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)) or individuals subject to removal orders.”
    • But the Court stayed the district court’s injunction to the extent it was broader than that. “The district court’s injunction, however, is not limited to detention decisions of aliens the United States has decided to remove. It is much broader. It enjoins reliance on memos that guide decisions on, among other things, ‘whether to issue a detainer,’ ‘whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear,’ and ‘whether to stop, question, or arrest a noncitizen.’ ICE Memo at 3. We see the United States likely succeeding on this core foci of the interim enforcement priorities—immigration officials’ ability to prioritize who is subject to investigative and enforcement action in the first place.”

Unpublished

  • Lawson v. Stephens, 20-10099, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous prisoner’s appeal from district court’s denial of motion to reopen time to appeal dismissal of § 1983 complaint.
  • U.S. v. Lacayo, 20-30468, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Pleasant, 20-50649, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
  • U.S. v. Hamilton, 21-10070, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing, mootness
    • Dismissing appeal of revocation sentence as moot where sentence had been discharged.
  • Wray v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 21-10374, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), employment discrimination, false imprisonment
    • Affirming dismissal of former employee’s false imprisonment claim against employer.
  • U.S. v. Jimenez-Ramirez, 21-40165, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Penaloza-Hernandez, 21-40367, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.