Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco
596 U.S. 763
SCOTUS2022Background
- DHS promulgated the 2019 "Public Charge Rule" to govern when an immigrant is "likely to become a public charge," affecting admissibility and adjustment of status.
- Multiple lawsuits challenged the Rule as unlawfully broad; several district courts (including the one here) and the Ninth Circuit found the Rule unlawful and entered relief.
- The Trump Administration defended and appealed those adverse rulings; after a change of administrations the federal government reversed course, voluntarily dismissed appeals, and stopped defending the Rule.
- The government then relied on a district-court vacatur entered in separate litigation to repeal the Rule without using APA notice-and-comment procedures.
- Thirteen States supporting the Rule sought to intervene to defend it; lower courts (and the government) opposed or blocked some intervention efforts.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the States should have been allowed to intervene but dismissed the writ as improvidently granted; Chief Justice Roberts concurred, explaining that numerous unresolved and interrelated administrative-law issues made resolution inappropriate on the granted question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supporting States may intervene to defend the Public Charge Rule when the federal government declines to defend it | States argued they had a significant, protectable interest and should be permitted to intervene to defend the Rule | Government and respondents contended intervention was unnecessary or improper once the Government ceased defending and appeals were dismissed | Court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted and did not resolve intervention question; Roberts concurred that complications justify dismissal |
| Whether the Government could repeal the Rule by relying on a district-court vacatur without APA notice-and-comment | Petitioners argued the repeal circumvented APA requirements and was unlawful because the Rule had been promulgated after notice-and-comment | Government argued that the district-court vacatur rendered the Rule a nullity so notice-and-comment was unnecessary | Not decided; Roberts flagged substantial APA and procedural issues raised by this tactic |
| Whether district courts may vacate regulations nationwide and the appropriate scope of injunctive/vacatur relief under the APA | Petitioners challenged broad vacatur and injunctive relief as improper | Government maintained that nationwide vacatur and relief were permissible in these circumstances | Not decided; Roberts noted the dispute over nationwide vacatur but declined to rule |
| How doctrines like standing, mootness, and Munsingwear vacatur apply when the government abandons defense and appeals are dismissed | Petitioners contended these doctrines should not preclude a merits determination or intervention where the Rule affects states' interests | Respondents/government argued the change in administration and dismissals created mootness and justified vacatur procedures | Not decided; Roberts emphasized these interconnected questions were obstacles to resolving the granted question |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur doctrine when a case becomes moot on appeal)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (agency repeal or change in policy generally requires notice-and-comment where the original action was adopted through notice-and-comment)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (requirements for reasoned decisionmaking when agencies change course)
- City & County of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 992 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2021) (Ninth Circuit decision addressing the Public Charge Rule and litigation posture)