603 F.Supp.3d 406
W.D. La.2022Background
- Section 265 of Title 42 authorizes the CDC to suspend introduction of persons to prevent spread of communicable diseases; CDC adopted COVID-era "Title 42" orders beginning March 2020 and maintained periodic renewals through 2021.
- On April 1, 2022 CDC issued a Termination Order ending the Title 42 orders effective May 23, 2022; CDC claimed the Order was not a rule subject to APA notice-and-comment, invoking the "good cause" and "foreign affairs" exceptions.
- Twenty-four states sued under the APA seeking a nationwide preliminary injunction to block the Termination Order; they rely on evidence (including DHS estimates) that termination will cause a large increase in border encounters and state costs for healthcare, education, and law enforcement.
- The Court held a hearing and considered the administrative record; defendants argued lack of standing, that injuries fall outside Title 42's zone of interests, and that the Termination Order is committed to agency discretion and exempt from notice-and-comment.
- The Court found the States likely to succeed on their APA procedural claim (failure to comply with notice-and-comment), concluded they have Article III standing (including "special solicitude"), rejected the claimed notice exceptions, and granted a nationwide preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / special solicitude | States claim procedural APA right and quasi-sovereign harms (healthcare, education, law‑enforcement costs) from increased migration; seek relaxed standing standard. | Defendants say alleged fiscal harms are speculative and not traceable to CDC action. | Court: States get special solicitude; have substantial likelihood of proving standing for healthcare/education costs traceable to termination. |
| Traceability of injuries | Increased crossings (government estimates) predictably cause state fiscal burdens; costs are legally cognizable. | Defendants contend causal chain to state law‑enforcement harms is speculative. | Court: Traceability established for healthcare/education fiscal injuries; law‑enforcement/crime link not supported on record. |
| Zone of interests (Title 42) | Title 42 regulates immigration for public health; termination impacts states' health/welfare and related fiscal obligations—thus within the statute's zone. | Defendants argue Title 42 protects public health only and does not confer interests in state fiscal burdens. | Court: States fall within Title 42's zone of interests; test not demanding. |
| Reviewability / committed to agency discretion | Plaintiffs: CDC action reviewable under APA; statute contains meaningful standards (public health necessity). | Defendants: Termination is discretionary and committed to agency judgment, so nonreviewable. | Court: Presumption of reviewability stands; defendants failed to show action committed to unreviewable discretion. |
| APA notice-and-comment (good cause) | CDC had time (Executive Order >14 months earlier) and must use notice-and-comment; good-cause and foreign-affairs exceptions do not apply. | CDC: Emergency, operational urgency, and foreign-affairs concerns justify dispensing with notice-and-comment. | Court: Good‑cause and cursory foreign‑affairs claims insufficient; CDC likely violated APA rulemaking requirements—substantial likelihood of success on merits. |
| Preliminary-injunction factors (irreparable harm, balance, public interest) | States: increased crossings will cause irreparable fiscal/resource burdens not remedied by money from feds. | Defendants: injunction substitutes court judgment for public‑health judgment of CDC and disrupts immigration/public‑health policy. | Court: Irreparable harm shown; balance and public interest favor injunction given procedural violation and available Title 42 exceptions DHS used historically. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (states entitled to "special solicitude" in standing analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing framework)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (rulemaking and notice-and-comment principles)
- Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (states' quasi-sovereign interests in immigration context)
- Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021) (standing and injunctive relief in challenge to immigration policy changes)
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (limits on agency post-hoc rationalizations)