In the Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States CHAD F. WOLF, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. INNOVATION LAW LAB, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY B. WALL EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitors General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL R. HUSTON AUSTIN L. RAYNOR Assistants to the Solicitor General EREZ REUVENI ARCHITH RAMKUMAR Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case concerns a Department of Homeland Secu- rity (DHS) policy, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which applies to aliens who have no legal entitlement to enter the United States but who depart from a third country and transit through Mexico to reach the United States land border. MPP is an exercise of DHS’s express authority under the Immi- gration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to return those aliens temporarily to Mexico during the pendency of their removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C). The district court issued a universal pre- liminary injunction barring DHS from implementing MPP. The court of appeals affirmed. The courts con- cluded that MPP likely violates the INA and the Admin- istrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The questions presented are: 1. Whether MPP is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C). 2. Whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations. 3. Whether MPP is exempt from the APA require- ment of notice-and-comment rulemaking. 4. Whether the district court’s universal prelimi- nary injunction is impermissibly overbroad. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners were the defendants-appellants in the court of appeals. They are Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Principal Deputy Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity as Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Andrew Davidson, in his official capacity as Chief of the Asylum Division, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Todd C. Owen, in his official capacity as Executive Assistant Commis- sioner, Office of Field Operations, United States Cus- toms and Border Protection; and Matthew Albence, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Offi- cial Performing the Duties of Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Respondents are Innovation Law Lab; Central American Resource Center of Northern California; Centro Legal de la Raza; University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic; Al Otro Lado; Tahirih Justice Center; John Doe; Gregory Doe; Bianca Doe; Dennis Doe; Alex Doe; Christopher Doe; Evan Doe; Frank Doe; Kevin Doe; Howard Doe; and Ian Doe. RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (N.D. Cal.): Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, No. 19-cv-807 (Apr. 8, 2019) United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.): Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, No. 19-15716 (Feb. 28, 2020) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 2 Statutory provisions involved ...................................................... 2 Statement: A. Legal framework ..................................................... 2 B. Factual background ................................................ 6 C. Procedural history ................................................. 10 Reasons for granting the petition: I. The decision below is incorrect .................................... 15 A. MPP is a lawful exercise of statutory authority ................................................................. 15 B. MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations ............ 23 C. MPP is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking ............................................................. 29 D. The universal injunction is overbroad ................. 30 II. The decision below warrants review ............................ 32 Conclusion ................................................................................... 35 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Feb. 28, 2020) ...... 1a Appendix B — District court order granting motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 8, 2019) ...... 48a Appendix C — Court of appeals order granting partial stay pending certiorari (Mar. 4, 2020) ..... 84a Appendix D — Court of appeals order granting motion for judicial notice (Feb. 28, 2020) ............. 95a Appendix E — Court of appeals opinion granting stay pending appeal (May 7, 2019) ................... 97a Appendix F — Court of appeals order denying reconsideration (May 24, 2019) .............. 127a Appendix G — Statutory provisions ................................... 128a Appendix H — Excerpts from administrative record implementing MPP ................................. 155a Appendix I — Department of Homeland Security assessment of MPP (Oct. 30, 2019) ........ 199a (III) IV TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) ................... 34 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) ................................. 2 Cruz v. Department of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2727, 2019 WL 8139805 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2019) ........................................................ 26 Department of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020) ........................................................... 34 E-R-M- & L-R-M-, In re, 25 I. & N. Dec. 520 (B.I.A. 2011) .......................................................... 4, 5, 18, 19 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985).............................................................. 27 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ............................... 31 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) ............ passim Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013).............................................................. 33 Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) ............................... 22 Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) ............................. 29, 30 M-E-V-G-, In re, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (B.I.A. 2014) ............ 26 M-S-, In re, 27 I. & N. Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) ......... 3, 4, 17, 20 National Mining Ass’n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................. 29 Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019) ............................... 16 O-F-A-S-, In re, 27 I. & N. 709 (B.I.A. 2019) ...................... 28 Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).............................................................. 24 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ............................ 34 United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) ................... 34 Urbina-Dore v. Holder, 735 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 28 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) .............................. 23 V Constitution, treaties, statutes, and regulations: Page U.S. Const. Art. III ............................................................... 30 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 20, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 ............... 24 art. 3, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, at 20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 114 ...................................................... 25 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force Apr. 22, 1954)...................................... 23 arts. 2-34, 19 U.S.T. 6264-6276, 189 U.N.T.S. 156-176 ........................................................................ 23 art. 33, 19 U.S.T. 6276, 189 U.N.T.S. 176 ...................... 23 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, done Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. 6577 ............ 23 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. ........................... 10 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) ..................................................... 11, 29 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ...................................................... 26, 30 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G, Subdiv. B, Tit. XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 to 2681-823 ............ 25 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 302, 110 Stat. 3009-579 to 3009-584 ................... 20 § 302(a), 110 Stat. 3009-583 ............................................ 24 § 305(a)(3), 110 Stat. 3009-602 ........................................ 24 § 307(a), 110 Stat. 3009-612 to 3009-614 ........................ 24 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. .............................................................. 2 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C) ....................................... 3, 21, 128a 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7) ................................................... 3, 129a VI Statutes and regulations—Continued: Page 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) ......................................................