East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. William Barr, 934 F.3d 1026

Background

Plaintiffs challenged a joint interim final rule by DOJ and DHS titled “Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications” (84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019)).
The district court preliminarily enjoined the Rule nationwide for failure to comply with APA notice-and-comment and 30-day grace-period requirements, finding exemptions (good cause, foreign affairs) inadequately supported.
The government (Appellants) moved for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction.
A Ninth Circuit motions panel denied the stay as to enforcement within the Ninth Circuit (finding the government failed to make a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits) but granted a stay as to enforcement outside the Ninth Circuit, concluding the district court had not justified a nationwide injunction on the record.
The panel emphasized that nationwide injunctions are exceptional and must be narrowly tailored to remedy plaintiffs’ specific harms; it remanded to the district court to develop any additional record supporting nationwide relief while the appeal proceeds.
A concurring/dissenting judge argued the motions panel overstepped by addressing the scope issue and that the entire stay should have been denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule violated APA notice-and-comment and 30-day requirements	The Rule was promulgated without adequate notice-and-comment and without a valid exemption; injunction appropriate	Government invoked "good cause" and "foreign affairs" exemptions to bypass notice and delay	Motions panel: government failed to make a strong showing of likelihood of success on merits as to those exemptions; stay denied within Ninth Circuit
Whether a nationwide injunction was justified	Nationwide injunction necessary because the Rule applies nationally and affects asylum administration across borders	District court did not adequately explain why nationwide relief was necessary; nationwide injunction unsupported by the record	Motions panel: district court clearly erred by not assessing necessity of nationwide scope; stay granted outside Ninth Circuit and remanded for further factual development
Standard for granting stay pending appeal	Plaintiffs: injunction should remain while appeal proceeds to prevent immediate harm	Government: entitled to stay unless plaintiffs show likelihood of success and other Hilton factors	Panel applied Hilton/Winter/Nken framework: government failed on likelihood-of-success for Ninth Circuit relief; separate inquiry required on injunction scope
Role of motions panel vs. merits panel in assessing nationwide scope	Plaintiffs: motions panel may review scope and correct obvious deficiencies	Government/concurring judge: scope and remand are merits-panel matters; motions panel exceeded its role	Majority: motions panel permissibly reviewed scope and limited nationwide relief; concurrence dissented on procedural grounds

Key Cases Cited

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (stay factors for injunctions, including likelihood of success)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions and irreparable harm)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal standards and importance of likelihood-of-success factor)
Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1982) (good cause APA exemption is narrow)
Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980) (foreign affairs APA exemption requires showing of definite international consequences)
City & County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018) (nationwide injunctions must be narrowly tailored; exceptional relief)
California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) (upholding injunctive relief on merits but limiting nationwide scope where record did not support breadth)
Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1988) (nationwide relief permissible only if necessary to give prevailing parties the relief entitled)
Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1991) (injunctions must be tailored to remedy specific harm)
United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984) (benefit of percolation: multiple courts should address important questions)