Tennessee v. United States Department of Education, 3:21-cv-00308

The State of Tennessee and other states filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education, challenging agency documents and obtained a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement against plaintiff states.
Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the injunction, but the appellate mandate has not yet issued.
After the appeal process had begun, Arizona sought to withdraw as a plaintiff from the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
Arizona argued its continued participation in the litigation was unnecessary and burdensome; co-plaintiff states opposed its withdrawal, contending the court lacked jurisdiction to drop Arizona while the appeal was pending.
The matter before the court was whether Arizona could be dropped as a party during the pendency of an appeal, considering both the effect on the injunction and the issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Arizona be dropped as a party while appeal of preliminary injunction is pending?	Withdrawal is proper; appeal doesn't divest court of jurisdiction; no prejudice.	Court lacks jurisdiction; dropping Arizona would alter injunction's scope; status quo must be preserved.	Denied without prejudice; dropping Arizona would modify injunction and status quo.

Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219 (6th Cir. 1981) (filing notice of appeal generally divests district court of jurisdiction)
Zundel v. Holder, 687 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 2012) (exception that appeal of preliminary injunction does not divest court of jurisdiction over merits)
City of Cookeville v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007) (district court cannot alter/enlarge judgment while on appeal)
Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507 (6th Cir. 1992) (limits on district court's authority to modify injunction pending appeal)