New York v. DHS, 974 F.3d 210

DHS issued a Final Rule (Aug. 2019) expanding the definition of "public charge" for immigration admissibility, prompting nationwide challenges.
In Oct. 2019, the Southern District of New York and several other district courts enjoined the Rule nationwide; DHS appealed and moved for stays.
The Supreme Court stayed those district-court preliminary injunctions in Jan. 2020, allowing the Rule to take effect pending appeal.
Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to modify the stay because of COVID-19; the Court denied relief but said a district-court filing remained available.
The SDNY, while the earlier injunctions were on appeal, issued a new nationwide preliminary injunction (July 29, 2020) based on COVID-related evidence that the Rule harms public health.
DHS moved in this Court to stay the July 29 injunction pending appeal. The motions panel granted a stay, concluding DHS is likely to succeed because the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to issue the second injunction while the first was on appeal and stayed by the Supreme Court; the merits panel will decide later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter a second preliminary injunction while an appeal of the first injunction was pending	COVID-19 changed the factual record; district court may reconsider and issue new relief	Notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal	Court doubted district-court jurisdiction; DHS likely to succeed on this ground and stay granted
Whether a nationwide injunction was appropriate	Nationwide relief required to prevent public-health harms across the country	Nationwide injunction improper; previous appellate guidance narrows scope to plaintiff states	Court questioned nationwide scope given the prior 2d Cir. ruling and Supreme Court skepticism; nationwide reach doubtful
Whether DHS faces irreparable harm without a stay	Public interest and health harms justify injunction against Rule	DHS suffers irreparable harm from being unable to implement its regulation	Court found DHS has shown irreparable harm from prohibition on enforcing the Rule
Whether the public interest and balance of equities favor a stay	Public-health interest favors enjoining the Rule to avoid deterrence of testing/treatment	Implementing the Rule furthers immigration policy; equities affected by injunction	Court emphasized jurisdictional defect as dispositive to likelihood of success but weighed irreparable harm in favor of DHS and issued stay

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay-pending-appeal factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1980) (timely notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over matters involved in appeal)
Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2004) (appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over matters covered by the notice)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on court of appeals)
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 847 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1988) (Rule 62(c) interpreted narrowly to preserve status quo during appeal)
Webb v. GAF, 78 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996) (district-court post-appeal actions limited and facts matter; not analogous here)
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020) (appellate decision affirming preliminary relief in part and narrowing injunction to states within the Circuit)
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020) (Supreme Court stay of the initial nationwide preliminary injunctions)