944 F.3d 1222
9th Cir.2019Background
- President issued Proclamation No. 9945 (Nov. 2019) restricting entry of immigrants who cannot show approved health insurance within 30 days of arrival or the financial means to pay reasonably foreseeable medical costs.
- The Proclamation relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and presidential foreign-affairs authority; it excluded persons already admitted and preserved asylum/refugee protections.
- Two days before the Proclamation was to take effect, plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order; the district court then entered a nationwide preliminary injunction holding § 1182(f) an unconstitutional delegation and ruling the Proclamation conflicted with the INA public‑charge framework.
- The government sought (1) an emergency temporary/administrative stay of the district court’s injunction pending the court’s consideration of a stay‑pending‑appeal motion and (2) a stay pending appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit (per curiam) denied the emergency temporary stay—finding no sufficient exigency to alter the status quo before expedited briefing and oral argument—and set an accelerated schedule for briefing and argument; Judge Bress dissented, arguing a temporary stay should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant an emergency temporary (administrative) stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction pending consideration of a stay‑pending‑appeal motion | Opposes stay; the status quo is the injunction; no exigency justifying disruption before imminent oral argument | Seek stay to preserve presidential authority and prevent irreparable harm from admissions the Proclamation would have blocked | Denied the emergency temporary stay for lack of sufficient exigency; expedited briefing and set oral argument (no merits decision) |
| Legality of § 1182(f) under the nondelegation doctrine | §1182(f) gives no intelligible principle; Congress unlawfully delegated legislative power | §1182(f) is a longstanding, broad delegation; Supreme Court precedent sustains its scope and grants deference to the President | Not decided here; district court below held §1182(f) unconstitutional, but Ninth Circuit did not decide merits in this administrative‑stay order (dissent says district court clearly erred) |
| Whether the Proclamation violates separation of powers / conflicts with INA public‑charge framework | Proclamation improperly supplants INA’s "totality of the circumstances" public‑charge analysis by making ability to pay dispositive | §1182(f) permits additional entry restrictions beyond INA; Trump v. Hawaii rejects the claim that a proclamation cannot add restrictions | Not decided here; the district court enjoined on these grounds but Ninth Circuit did not reach merits in this order |
| Scope and propriety of the district court’s nationwide preliminary injunction | Nationwide relief justified to prevent classwide injuries | Nationwide injunction exceeds necessity and short‑circuits class certification; nationwide relief is disfavored | Court left injunction in place for now; signaled concerns about nationwide relief and expedited appellate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (upheld §1182(f) deference to President and confirmed presidential authority to impose entry restrictions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay‑pending‑appeal factors govern injunction/stay analysis)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (exclusion of aliens is a sovereign executive power distinct from ordinary delegation concerns)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (separation‑of‑powers principles and deference in foreign‑affairs context)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (Supreme Court’s recent discussion of nondelegation doctrine and its rarity)
- California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) (stay factors and irreparable‑harm discussion in administrative‑law context)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019) (cautionary guidance on nationwide injunctions and their necessity)
- Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (recognition of broad executive authority over entry of aliens)