Department of Homeland Security v. New York
140 S.Ct. 599, 206 L. Ed. 2d 115 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a concurring opinion regarding the stay of a universal injunction, it was argued that such injunctions, which prohibit the government from enforcing a policy against anyone nationwide, likely exceed the traditional equitable powers of a district court under Article III and create systemic legal chaos.
Facts:
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated a rulemaking process on October 10, 2018, to define the term 'public charge' as used in U.S. immigration laws.
- The agency's rulemaking process lasted approximately ten months and involved reviewing 266,000 public comments.
- Following this process, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule containing the new definition.
- Upon its issuance, a number of states, organizations, and individual plaintiffs challenged the final rule's legality.
Procedural Posture:
- Various states, organizations, and individuals filed lawsuits in several federal district courts challenging a new Department of Homeland Security rule defining 'public charge.'
- A single judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction that barred the government from enforcing the rule against anyone nationwide.
- The government requested a stay of that injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied.
- The government then filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to stay the district court's nationwide injunction pending the outcome of the government's appeal in the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have the equitable authority under Article III to issue a 'universal' or 'nationwide' injunction that prohibits the government from enforcing a challenged rule against all persons, including those who are not parties to the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
This is a brief order, not an opinion on the merits. The Court granted the government's application for a stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction. This allows the government's 'public charge' rule to take effect everywhere except Illinois (which was covered by a separate injunction) while the case proceeds through the appellate courts. The order itself provides no legal reasoning.
Concurring - Justice Gorsuch
No, a district court's equitable power likely does not extend to issuing universal injunctions. This practice raises serious questions about the scope of judicial power under Article III, as equitable remedies are traditionally meant to redress the specific injuries of the parties before the court, not strangers to the suit. Universal injunctions are a recent and problematic innovation with little basis in history, forcing rushed, high-stakes decisions based on limited information. They create a chaotic legal environment by encouraging forum shopping, generating conflicting rulings, and allowing a single district judge to halt a national policy, thereby preventing the orderly development of law through deliberation in multiple circuits. The Court must eventually confront the legitimacy of this practice.
Dissenting - Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan
The dissenters would have denied the government's application for a stay. No written opinion explaining their reasoning was provided.
Analysis:
Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, while not a binding holding, strongly signals the Supreme Court's growing skepticism towards the practice of nationwide injunctions. It frames the issue as a fundamental question of judicial power under Article III, suggesting that lower courts are overstepping their authority by providing relief to non-parties. This opinion serves as an invitation for future legal challenges to the practice and foreshadows a potential ruling by the Court that would significantly curtail or eliminate the ability of a single district judge to halt federal policies for the entire country.
