E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr
391 F. Supp. 3d 974
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Federal agencies (DOJ and DHS) issued an interim final rule (the "third country transit bar") categorically denying asylum to entrants who did not first seek protection in Mexico or another third country.
- Five nonprofit organizations (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, Central American Resource Center, and others) sued and obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court blocking the Rule nationwide.
- The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction only insofar as it applied outside the Ninth Circuit, concluding the record was insufficient to support a nationwide injunction and remanding for further development; the court said the district court "retains jurisdiction to further develop the record."
- Plaintiffs submitted supplemental declarations showing organizational harms (diversion of resources, retraining, loss of capacity) that would arise if the Rule applied outside the Ninth Circuit; agencies issued guidance attempting to limit enforcement to Ninth Circuit circumstances.
- The district court held a hearing, concluded it retains jurisdiction under Rule 62(d) and the Ninth Circuit's remand language, and found a nationwide injunction necessary to provide complete relief and to avoid administrability problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to restore nationwide injunction while appeal pending | District court retained jurisdiction per Ninth Circuit remand language to develop record and may restore nationwide scope under Rule 62(d) | District court is divested of jurisdiction by appeal and at most may issue an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 | Court has jurisdiction to consider supplemental record and, alternatively, would grant an indicative ruling; Rule 62(d) preserves the status quo. |
| Necessity of nationwide injunction to remedy plaintiff harms | Organizational diversion of resources and retraining affect operations nationwide; narrower relief would not fully redress injuries | Plaintiffs identified no specific non-Ninth Circuit clients injured; narrower, client-specific relief would suffice | Nationwide injunction is necessary to provide complete relief to organizations like Law Lab and Al Otro Lado. |
| Proper scope of injunctive relief under equitable and APA principles | Nationwide relief is appropriate where breadth is necessary to remedy violations; APA authorizes vacatur of unlawful regulations nationwide | Nationwide injunctions are disfavored generally and may be overbroad; relief should be limited to identified harms/territory | Court may craft broad equitable relief when record shows nationwide impact and statutory review supports setting aside agency action generally. |
| Administrability and uniformity concerns | Fragmented injunctions would cause inconsistent application, retraining burdens, and procedural confusion as applicants move between circuits | Agency guidance can confine application to Ninth Circuit and manage enforcement | Fragmentary agency guidance is insufficient; nationwide injunction avoids inconsistent enforcement and administrative problems. |
Key Cases Cited
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1979) (scope of injunctive relief governed by extent of violation, not geography)
- Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court may reissue or modify injunction under Rule 62 to preserve status quo during appeal)
- Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) (appeal divests district court of jurisdiction except limited exceptions like preserving status quo)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018) (remand for more searching inquiry into national scope of injunction)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (East Bay II), 932 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussion of uncertainty around nationwide injunctions but recognizing authority in immigration matters)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr (East Bay V), 934 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2019) (partially stayed district court's nationwide injunction and remanded for record development)
- Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1988) (upholding nationwide injunction where plaintiffs' relief required national scope)
- Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2007) (in APA context, court may vacate unlawful agency rules nationwide)