Case: State of Texas v. Nielsen

1:18-cv-00068 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Filed Date: May 1, 2018

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 1, 2018, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia brought actions for declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States and various federal immigration officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The states, represented by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, claimed that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program, created by a 2012 executive action by the Obama Administration, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The states claimed that the DACA program granted lawful presence to millions of unlawfully present immigrants without congressional authorization. They sought to enjoin the government from issuing or renewing any DACA permits in the future and a declaration that DACA violated the Take Care Clause and the APA. The case was assigned to District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

The states moved for a preliminary injunction on May 2, 2018. On May 8, DACA recipients and the state of New Jersey filed a motion to intervene as defendants, which Judge Hanen granted on May 15. The defendants then moved to dismiss the case on May 29 without prejudice or to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where a similar case was being litigated. Judge Hanen denied the motions on May 30.

The states filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2018, which added the state of Kansas and two governors as plaintiffs. On July 5, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On August 31, Judge Hanen denied the states’ May 2nd request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the states had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim related to both the procedural and substantive aspects of the APA. However, the court denied the injunction for three reasons: the states had delayed seeking this relief for years; the balance of private interests fell in favor of denying the relief; and implementing the relief was contrary to the public interest. The court did not rule on whether the DACA program violated the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. 328 F. Supp. 3d 662, 740 (S.D. Tex. 2018).

On February 4, 2019, the states moved for summary judgment. In their response, the defendants agreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their substantive APA claim, but opposed summary judgment on the other claims.

On August 28, 2019, the defendant-intervenor State of New Jersey moved to stay the case until the Supreme Court ruled on cases involving the rescinding of DACA (Regents of Univ. of California v. DHS, NAACP v. Trump, and Wolf v. Vidal). These cases had oral arguments before the Supreme court on November 19, 2019, which touched on issues related to DACA’s issuance. Judge Hanen granted the stay on November 22, 2019, finding that the Supreme Court’s opinion in those related cases could potentially resolve this case. 2019 WL 6255351.

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Regents of Univ. of California v. DHS, holding that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)’s 2017 order rescinding DACA was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. Judge Hanen ordered the parties to compile a joint status report on how this would affect the case by July 24.

On August 21, 2020, Judge Hanen denied the states’ motion for summary judgment that was filed on February 4, 2019 without prejudice, holding that the Regents decision may impact the legal issues in this case. 2020 WL 6440497.

The states filed a new motion for summary judgment on October 9, 2020. The defendant-intervenors also moved for summary judgment on November 6, claiming that the states lacked standing. The court heard oral arguments for these motions on December 22.

On the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2021), President Biden signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General "to preserve and fortify DACA." Two days later, defendant-intervenors notified the court that the federal defendants would shift their position on the case in light of President Biden’s memorandum. They requested a status conference to discuss how President Biden’s memorandum would impact the substantive and procedural aspects of this litigation. Considering both the Presidential memorandum and that the House of Representatives passed the American Dream and Promise Act, an act to create a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, Judge Hanen granted the defendant-intervenors’ request on March 19, 2021. The parties discussed the possible impact of the American Dream and Promise Act on the litigation at a status conference on March 30, 2021.

On July 16, 2021, Judge Hanen granted the states’ motion for summary judgment that was filed on October 9, 2020. 2021 WL 3025857. The court held that DHS violated the APA because it did not undergo the required notice and comment rulemaking procedures when it created DACA, and thus DACA was not a legally binding policy. Additionally, Judge Hanen held that Congress did not grant DHS the statutory authority to enact DACA, so even if DHS satisfied the procedural APA requirements, the agency action would still violate the substantive provisions of the APA. Also on July 16, Judge Hanen issued a permanent injunction vacating the DACA program, prohibiting its continued operation, and remanding the issue to DHS for further consideration. 2021 WL 3022434. The court ruled that DHS could accept new and renewal DACA applications, but could not approve new applications without further judicial authorization. Because of the widespread reliance on DACA, Judge Hanen temporarily stayed the injunction for preexisting DACA recipients and prohibited law enforcement from taking immigration, deportation, or criminal action against current DACA recipients.

The defendants appealed the court's decision on September 10, 2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on July 6, 2022. Throughout the appeal, DHS was engaged in rulemaking with the stated intent to “preserve and fortify DHS’s DACA policy.” The agency promulgated a final rule on August 30, 2022. Writing for the Fifth Circuit on October 5, 2022, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman affirmed the lower court’s decision and ordered the defendants to pay the cost of the appeal. Chief Judge Richman remanded to the district court to review the new DHS rule (promulgated in August 2022) and the administrative record, which had not been available to the appellate court for review. Chief Judge Richman extended the stay of the injunction for existing DACA recipients.

Upon remand to the district court, Judge Hanen extended the injunction to cover the August 2022 DHS rule on October 14, 2022. He again enjoined DHS from granting DACA status for new applicants, but permitted the agency to accept new applications and to accept and grant renewal applications.

The states filed a supplemental complaint in the district court on January 31, 2023, which alleged that the August 2022 DHS rule contained the same constitutional and APA violations as the DACA memorandum. The complaint sought declaratory relief and to enjoin DHS from approving renewal DACA applications. The states and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment on January 31 and March 2, and Judge Hanen heard oral arguments on June 1.

On September 13, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for the states and extended the injunction to DHS’s August 2022 rule. Judge Hanen held that, like the DACA memorandum, the August 2022 rule exceeded DHS’s statutory authority and violated the APA. The court also declined to sever the legally problematic part of the DHS rule (the benefits provision) because DHS would not have adopted DACA without the benefits provision and the final rule would not function sensibly without it. Judge Hanen reiterated that neither the order nor the injunction required DHS or the Department of Justice to deport or take criminal action against DACA recipients or applicants.

The defendants and defendant-intervenors appealed the district court’s decision on November 9, 2023 (docket no: 23-40653). In February 2024, many amicus briefs were also filed in support of the defendant and defendant-intervenors’ position and reversal of the district court’s judgment, one notably by a group of 22 states and the District of Columbia, another by a group of 19 colleges and universities, another by a group of 50 local governments, as well as others by numerous non-governmental organizations. Through May 2024, the parties filed their respective briefings on the matter. Oral arguments were then scheduled for October 10, 2024.

Following oral arguments, on January 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit largely agreed with the district court and affirmed the judgment. The Fifth Circuit determined that because the August 2022 rule was materially identical to the 2012 DACA memorandum, it substantively violated the INA. Because the INA did not include the DACA comprehensive scheme for regulation of immigration, the rule and memorandum were foreclosed as a result of being contrary to the Act itself. In turn, the rule exceeded DHS’s statutory authority. The Fifth Circuit, though, did note that because DHS intended the aspects of DACA to be severable and to function independently from one another, the district court erred by not severing the benefits/forbearance provisions from the work-authorization provisions. Despite this, the court merely heeded the rule’s severability clause and did not actually disturb DACA's policy of forbearance. However, the Fifth Circuit did modify the remedy. Rather than a nationwide injunction, the court tailored the remedy such that the injunction applied only to Texas because it was the only plaintiff that demonstrated an actual injury. The Fifth Circuit continued to preserve the stay as to existing DACA recipients and applicants due to the immense reliance interests on the program. 126 F.4th 392.

	Document
1:18-cv-00068	Docket	Sept. 10, 2021	Sept. 10, 2021 Docket
1 1:18-cv-00068	Complaint	May 1, 2018	May 1, 2018 Complaint
104 1:18-cv-00068	First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State of Texas v. Nielsen, State of Texas v. United States of America	June 25, 2018	June 25, 2018 Complaint
320 1:18-cv-00068	Interlocutory Appeal Order State of Texas v. The United States of America	Aug. 31, 2018	Aug. 31, 2018 Order/Opinion
318 1:18-cv-00068	Memorandum Opinion and Order State of Texas v. Nielsen, State of Texas v. United States of America	Aug. 31, 2018	Aug. 31, 2018 Order/Opinion 328 F.Supp.3d 662
319 1:18-cv-00068	Memorandum Opinion and Order State of Texas v. The United States of America	Aug. 31, 2018	Aug. 31, 2018 Order/Opinion
366 1:18-cv-00068	Federal Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment State of Texas v. The United States of America	Feb. 25, 2019	Feb. 25, 2019 Pleading / Motion / Brief
447 1:18-cv-00068	Order State of Texas v. United States of America	Nov. 22, 2019	Nov. 22, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 6255351
473 1:18-cv-00068	Order State of Texas v. United States of America	Aug. 21, 2020	Aug. 21, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 6440497
569 1:18-cv-00068	Federal Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Request For A Stay State of Texas v. United States of America	April 9, 2021	April 9, 2021 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Oral History Project Interview with Attorney Thomas Saenz Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse	Contents: Clearinghouse Oral History Project Interview with Attorney Thomas Saenz (Fall 2023) [0:00-16:13] Introduction (Early…	December 2023	Dec. 18, 2023 https://www.mivideo.it.umich.edu/...
Federal Judge Again Rules DACA Is Illegal Miriam Jordan	The judge maintained that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the program, which has allowed thousands of young undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation and work legally…	Sept. 13, 2023	Sept. 13, 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/...
Texas v. United States MALDEF	Texas v. United States is a challenge to the legality of DACA by nine states led by Texas.	March 29, 2021	March 29, 2021 https://www.maldef.org/...
Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Office of the President	In 2012, during the Obama-Biden Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum outlining how, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security…	Jan. 25, 2021	Jan. 25, 2021 https://www.federalregister.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541-19989656) filed by State of Nebraska, State Of Texas, State of Arkansas, State of South Carolina, State or Alabama, State of Louisiana, State of West Virginia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/01/2018) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP	May 1, 2018	May 1, 2018 Clearinghouse
2	ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Andrew S Hanen for all further proceedings. Judge Rolando Olvera no longer assigned to the case(Signed by Judge Rolando Olvera) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 05/01/2018)	May 1, 2018	May 1, 2018 RECAP
3	ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 7/31/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Andrew S Hanen(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 05/01/2018)	May 1, 2018	May 1, 2018 RECAP
4	Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
5	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
6	First APPENDIX re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Table of Contents)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018) 1 Supplement Table of Contents View on PACER	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
7	Second APPENDIX re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
8	Third APPENDIX re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
9	Fourth APPENDIX re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 RECAP
10	MOTION for Jeffrey S. Robins to Appear Pro Hac Vice by L. Francis Cissna, Thomas D. Homan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Carla L. Provost, United States of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/25/2018. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2018: # 1 Attorney Verification) (bcampos, 1). (Entered: 05/04/2018) 1 Attorney Verification View on PACER	May 4, 2018	May 4, 2018 RECAP
11	Request for Issuance of Summons as to All Defendants, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Kirstjen M. Nielsen, # 2 Kevin K. McLeenan, # 3 Thomas D. Homan, # 4 L. Francis Cissna, # 5 Carla L. Provost)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/07/2018) 1 Kirstjen M. Nielsen View on PACER 2 Kevin K. McLeenan View on PACER 3 Thomas D. Homan View on PACER 4 L. Francis Cissna View on PACER 5 Carla L. Provost View on PACER	May 7, 2018	May 7, 2018 RECAP
12	ORDER granting 10 Motion for Jeffrey S. Robins to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1) (Entered: 05/07/2018)	May 7, 2018	May 7, 2018 RECAP
	Summons Issued as to 1.) L. Francis Cissna, 2.) Thomas D. Homan, 3.) Kevin K. McAleenan, 4.) Kirstjen M. Nielsen, 5.) Carla L. Provost, 6.) U.S. Attorney General. Issued summons returned to plaintiff by First-class mail, filed.(bcampos, 1)	May 8, 2018	May 8, 2018 PACER
13	MOTION to Intervene by Karla Perez, Maria Rocha, Jose Magana-Salgado, Nanci J Palacios Godinez, Elly Marisol Estrada, Karina Ruiz De Diaz, Carlos Aguilar Gonzalez, Karla Lopez, Luis A Rafael, Darwin Velasquez, Jin Park, Oscar Alvarez, Nancy Adossi, Denise Romero, Pratishtha Khanna, Jung Woo Kim, Angel Silva, Moses Kamau Chege, Hyo-Won Jeon, Elizabeth Diaz, Maria Diaz, Blanca Gonzalez, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Answer, # 2 Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/08/2018) 1 Exhibit Proposed Answer View on PACER 2 Proposed Order View on PACER	May 8, 2018	May 8, 2018 RECAP
14	MEMORANDUM in Support re: 13 MOTION to Intervene by Nancy Adossi, Carlos Aguilar Gonzalez, Oscar Alvarez, Moses Kamau Chege, Elizabeth Diaz, Maria Diaz, Elly Marisol Estrada, Blanca Gonzalez, Hyo-Won Jeon, Pratishtha Khanna, Jung Woo Kim, Karla Lopez, Jose Magana-Salgado, Nanci J Palacios Godinez, Jin Park, Karla Perez, Luis A Rafael, Maria Rocha, Denise Romero, Karina Ruiz De Diaz, Angel Silva, Darwin Velasquez, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/08/2018) 1 Appendix A View on PACER 2 Appendix B View on PACER	May 8, 2018	May 8, 2018 RECAP
15	ORDER entered by the Court. The Court will hold a Scheduling Conference set for 5/15/2018 at 10:30 AM before Judge Andrew S Hanen. The District Clerk's Office will provide each counsel with the appropriate call-in-number. (Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 05/09/2018)	May 9, 2018	May 9, 2018 RECAP
16	ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 05/09/2018)	May 9, 2018	May 9, 2018 RECAP
	*** Emailed sent to parties with the appropriate call-in number as per 15 Order., filed. (csustaeta, 1)	May 9, 2018	May 9, 2018 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel D. Hu on behalf of L. Francis Cissna, Thomas D. Homan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Carla L. Provost, United States of America, filed. (Hu, Daniel) (Entered: 05/10/2018)	May 10, 2018	May 10, 2018 RECAP
18	NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Arthur Biggs on behalf of State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. (Biggs, Adam) (Entered: 05/14/2018)	May 14, 2018	May 14, 2018 RECAP
19	NOTICE of Appearance by Brantley Starr on behalf of State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. (Starr, Brantley) (Entered: 05/14/2018)	May 14, 2018	May 14, 2018 RECAP
20	MOTION for Brett A. Shumate to Appear Pro Hac Vice by L. Francis Cissna, Thomas D. Homan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Carla L. Provost, United States of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/4/2018. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2018: # 1 Verified membership status) (bcampos, 1). (Entered: 05/14/2018) 1 Verified membership status View on PACER	May 14, 2018	May 14, 2018 RECAP
	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew S Hanen. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 5/15/2018. Appearances: Attys for Plaintiff: T.Disher, A.Biggs, B.Starr; Attys for Defts: J. Robins, D. Hu, B.Shumate; Attys for Intervenos: N.Perales, C. Moreno, J. Salmon;(Court Reporter: S. Perales)(10:30-10:40). 13 Motion to Intervene not opposed by parties-GRANTED. 20 Motion for Brett A. Shumate to Appear Pro Hac Vice-GRANTED. Parties are to submit an agreed scheduling order as to 5 Preliminary Injuction by 05/25/18. If parties do not agree to a scheduling order each party is to submit their own scheduling order by 05/25/18. Scheduling Conference set for 05/30/18 at 11:00 am in Brownsville., filed.(csustaeta, 1)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
21	ORDER granting 20 Motion for Brett A. Shumate to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(dbenavides, 1) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 RECAP
	***Set/Reset Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 5/30/2018 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Andrew S Hanen in Brownsville, Tx. (csustaeta, 1)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
22	ORDER granting 13 Motion to Intervene. The Court having considered the papers submitted in connection with said motion, and such other relevant information and evidence as was presented to this Court, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that: (1) Motion for Leave to Intervene is granted; (2) Movants be entered as Defendant-Intervenors and their counsel served with all relevant papers in the above-captioned action; and (3) The Clerk of Court shall docket Movants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, attached as Exhibit 1 to Movants' Motion for Leave to Intervene..(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 05/16/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 RECAP
23	ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Defendants-Intervenors Nancy Adossi, Carlos Aguilar Gonzalez, Oscar Alvarez, Moses Kamau Chege, Elizabeth Diaz, Maria Diaz, Elly Marisol Estrada, Blanca Gonzalez, Hyo-Won Jeon, Pratishtha Khanna, Jung Woo Kim, Karla Lopez, Jose Magana-Salgado, Nanci J Palacios Godinez, Jin Park, Karla Perez, Luis A Rafael, Maria Rocha, Denise Romero, Karina Ruiz De Diaz, Angel Silva, Darwin Velasquez, filed.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 05/16/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 RECAP
24	CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/16/2018)	May 16, 2018	May 16, 2018 RECAP
25	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to United States of America served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
26	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Kirstjen M. Nielsen served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
27	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Kevin K. McAleenan served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
28	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Thomas D. Homan served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
29	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to L. Francis Cissna served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
30	RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Carla L. Provost served on 5/16/2018, answer due 7/16/2018, filed.(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
31	AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Nina Perales for Transcript of Scheduling Conference by phone on 05/15/18 before Judge Hanen. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Sheila Perales, filed. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 PACER
32	MOTION for Kenneth S. Levine to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of New Jersey, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/7/2018. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 05/18/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
33	MOTION for Rachel Wainer Apter to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of New Jersey, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/7/2018. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 05/18/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 RECAP
34	TRANSCRIPT re: Telephonic Conference held on May 15, 2018 before Judge Andrew S Hanen. Court Reporter/Transcriber sperales. Ordering Party Ms. Karen C. Tumlin Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/16/2018., filed. (sperales, ) (Entered: 05/18/2018)	May 18, 2018	May 18, 2018 PACER
35	Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 34 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 05/21/2018)	May 21, 2018	May 21, 2018 RECAP
36	MOTION for Scheduling Order by State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Disher, Todd) (Entered: 05/21/2018) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	May 21, 2018	May 21, 2018 RECAP

Case: State of Texas v. Nielsen

1:18-cv-00068 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details