Case: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr

4:19-cv-04073 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: July 16, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about the ability of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to issue new guidelines on asylum application procedures and whether DHS is allowed to issue a rule that asylum seekers must first apply for asylum in another country before applying in the U.S. On July 16, 2019, four advocacy organizations — the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center — challenged a new asylum policy of the Trump administration narrow…

On July 16, 2019, four advocacy organizations — the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center — challenged a new asylum policy of the Trump administration narrowing eligibility qualifications for asylum seekers. The Rule blocked asylum for noncitizens who transited through another country prior to reaching the southern U.S. border. The plaintiffs sued the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California and ultimately assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.

The complaint had three key arguments. First, plaintiffs argued that Congress made clear that noncitizens may apply for asylum regardless of where they enter the U.S., and that many necessarily transit through another country before reaching a U.S. port of entry. U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). The complaint emphasized the distinction between firm resettlement barring eligibility for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), and temporary transit through another country. Second, plaintiffs argued that the Rule jeopardized the international law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forcible return of asylum seekers to countries where they would be persecuted. Third, plaintiffs argued that the government failed to follow procedural steps required by the APA, including providing notice and an opportunity to comment prior to enacting the Rule.

On July 24, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing the government from implementing the Rule due to the government’s failure to comply with notice and comment procedures of the APA. The court additionally concluded that the Rule was likely invalid because the government offered no evidence that the Mexican asylum regime provided a full and fair procedure for determining asylum claims and that the balance of public interests tipped strongly in favor of injunctive relief because of our immigration laws’ goal of protecting claimants from continued persecution. 385 F.Supp.3d 922.

On July 29, 2019, the government requested a stay of the injunction pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the nationwide scope of the injunction was unwarranted and would serve to undermine the constitutional and statutory authority of the Executive Branch. On August 16, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied a stay for application of the injunction inside its boundaries. However, the Ninth Circuit granted the stay pending appeal for all locations outside the Ninth Circuit, finding that the nationwide scope of the injunction was not supported by the record in the district court. 934 F.3d 1026. The plaintiffs then moved in the district court to restore the nationwide scope of the injunction, supplementing the record the appeals court had found inadequate.

In response to these proceedings, the government issued guidance providing that in some circumstances the district court's order would enjoin enforcement of the Rule outside the Ninth Circuit. But despite this guidance, on September 9, 2019 the district court concluded that the plaintiffs would still have to divert resources to determine who was subject to the Rule and change work practices. Consequently, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the nationwide scope of the injunction, viewing it as the only sufficient remedy to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, as well as necessary to maintain uniform immigration policy. 391 F.Supp.3d 974. The government again appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed an emergency motion for a stay. While the stay issue was being briefed, on September 11, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court’s orders pending disposition of the government’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit without addressing the substantive merits or the scope of the injunction. 140 S.Ct. 3. Following these proceedings, in November 2019, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings pending resolution of their interlocutory appeal of the court's preliminary injunction orders.

The Ninth Circuit heard argument on the government’s appeal in December 2019. In July 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, affirming the district court's finding that the Rule was unlawful under the APA because it was not consistent with asylum bars under U.S.C. § 1158 and because the rule was arbitrary and capricious. With regards to the scope of the injunction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a nationwide injunction was appropriate given the need for uniform immigration policy. 964 F.3d 832. The Ninth Circuit additionally denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc.

In October 2020, a group of 128 individuals seeking asylum in the U.S. filed a motion to intervene in the case to permit them to avail themselves of any granted relief, arguing that their interests were not represented by the existing plaintiffs in the case. This group of individuals also filed a motion for injunctive relief, which the court granted two days later. Under the temporary restraining order, the government could not remove the proposed intervenors, who were subject to the Rule’s bar, from the U.S. before receiving instruction from the court. However, the following month, the court denied the proposed intervenors' motion to intervene and motion for a preliminary injunction after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over their claims. Criticizing the result it was bound to reach as both “unsatisfying” and “unduly harsh,” the court explained that the INA sharply limited judicial review of the expedited removal process, and that only the United States District Court for the District of Columbia could take jurisdiction over this type of systematic challenge. The proposed intervenors appealed this order.

In December 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued a separate “final rule” on the asylum issue that was substantially similar to the one the district court had preliminarily enjoined. On January 21, 2021, two days after this final rule took effect, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and stay of the final rule’s effective date. On January 28, 2021, the plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint seeking to enjoin the government from implementing this new rule as well. The district court granted the preliminary injunction and stay of the effective date on February 16. In its order, the court noted that the final rule was still inconsistent with U.S.C. § 1158 and still failed to present sufficient evidence that asylum in Mexico was a feasible alternative to asylum in the U.S.

Shortly thereafter, President Biden signed an executive order directing the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to review the final rule. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the case in light of this ongoing review. The district court granted this motion in March 2021.

In April 2021, the Ninth Circuit amended its opinion from July 2020 upholding the original injunction, explicitly clarifying that its previous denial of part of the stay was not binding given the district court’s consideration of subsequent record development in the case and again affirming the district court’s stay. The new administration moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of the injunction on September 23, 2021.

As the government continued to review the rules at issue, it agreed to file status reports every 60 days updating the court on the status of the review. In June 2022, the court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. The most recent status report was filed on February 23, 2023. On December 13, 2023, the court indicated that it would extend the stay given pending resolution of a related case, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, before the Ninth Circuit. This case is ongoing.

	Document
1 4:19-cv-04073	Complaint	July 16, 2019	July 16, 2019 Complaint
42 4:19-cv-04073	Order Granting Preliminary Injunction	July 24, 2019	July 24, 2019 Order/Opinion
0:19-16487	Order U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 16, 2019	Aug. 16, 2019 Order/Opinion 934 F.3d 1026
73 4:19-cv-04073	Order Granting Motion to Restore Nationwide Scope of Injunction	Sept. 9, 2019	Sept. 9, 2019 Order/Opinion 391 F.Supp.3d 974
19-00230	Opinion Supreme Court of the United States	Sept. 11, 2019	Sept. 11, 2019 Order/Opinion 140 S.Ct. 3
0:19-16487	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	July 6, 2020	July 6, 2020 Order/Opinion 964 F.3d 832
123 4:19-cv-04073	Order Denying Leave To Intervene And Denying Preliminary Injunction	Nov. 10, 2020	Nov. 10, 2020 Order/Opinion 500 F.Supp.3d 1030
134 4:19-cv-04073	First Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Rosen	Jan. 28, 2021	Jan. 28, 2021 Complaint
138 4:19-cv-04073	Order Granting Preliminary Injunction	Feb. 16, 2021	Feb. 16, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 607869
145 4:19-cv-04073 0:19-16773 0:19-16487	Order and Amended Opinion East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	April 8, 2021	April 8, 2021 Order/Opinion 994 F.3d 962

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Lawsuits East Bay Sanctuary Covenant	In November 2018, when the Trump administration tried to deny asylum rights to anyone who couldn’t reach an official port of entry – a potential death sentence for thousands of people – we took them …	Aug. 20, 2020	Aug. 20, 2020 https://web.archive.org/...
East Bay v. Barr ACLU	The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new asylum restrictions announced …	Feb. 16, 2021	Feb. 16, 2021 https://www.aclu.org/...
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr	The lawsuit charges the administration with violating the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was filed in federal court in San Francisco. It was …	Feb. 28, 2020	Feb. 28, 2020 https://www.aclu.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Immigration Action) against All Defendants, (Filing Fee: $400.00, receipt number 0971-13523432). Filed by Innovation Law Lab, Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. (Attachments: #(1) Civil Cover Sheet)(Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 7/16/2019) (Entered: 07/16/2019) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP	July 16, 2019	July 16, 2019 RECAP
	~Util - Case Assigned by Intake	July 16, 2019	July 16, 2019 PACER
2	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 7/30/2019. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2019) (Entered: 07/16/2019)	July 16, 2019	July 16, 2019 PACER
3	MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum ISO Motion for TRO, # 2 Declaration Smith Declaration, # 3 Declaration Pinheiro Declaration, # 4 Declaration Manning Declaration, # 5 Declaration Sharp Declaration, # 6 Declaration Frydman Declaration, # 7 Declaration Anker and Hathaway Declaration, # 8 Proposed Order)(Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019) 1 Memorandum ISO Motion for TRO View on RECAP 2 Declaration Smith Declaration View on RECAP 3 Declaration Pinheiro Declaration View on RECAP 4 Declaration Manning Declaration View on RECAP 5 Declaration Sharp Declaration View on RECAP 6 Declaration Frydman Declaration View on RECAP 7 Declaration Anker and Hathaway Declaration View on RECAP 8 Proposed Order View on RECAP	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
	Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment - Text Only	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 PACER
4	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab.. (Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
5	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 PACER
6	Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order, (fabS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
7	ORDER, Case Reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge William H. Orrick for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler no longer assigned to the case. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by The Clerk on 7/17/19. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019) 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording View on RECAP	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
8	NOTICE of Appearance by Erez R. Reuveni (Reuveni, Erez) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
9	MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice of Lee Gelernt, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-13528529) filed by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab. (Gelernt, Lee) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Michelle Veroff (Veroff, Julie) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
11	NOTICE of Appearance by Cody H. Wofsy (Wofsy, Cody) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
12	NOTICE of Appearance by Spencer Elijah Wittmann Amdur (Amdur, Spencer) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
13	ORDER RELATING CASES 18-cv-06810-JST and 19-cv-04073-WHO. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 17, 2019. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 RECAP
	Set/Reset Hearing re 13 Order Relating Case Telephone Conference set for 7/18/2019 08:30 AM in San Francisco, Chambers before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019)	July 17, 2019	July 17, 2019 PACER
14	Case reassigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar per related case order. Judge William H. Orrick no longer assigned to the case. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
	Telephone Conference	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 PACER
	~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearings	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 PACER
15	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Telephone Conference held on 7/18/2019. Parties are to meet and confer regarding the Temporary Restraining Order briefing and submit a proposed schedule by noon today. Proposed Schedule due by 7/18/2019 by 12:00 PM PST.Total Time in Court: 30 minutes. Court Reporter: Not Reported or Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney: Lee Gelernt, Melissa Crow, Julie Veroff, Bahar Azmy, Katrina Eiland. Defendant Attorney: Erez Reuveni. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 PACER
16	NOTICE of Appearance by Vasudha Talla (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Patricia Sun (Sun, Christine) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
18	SCHEDULING ORDER. Responses due by 7/19/2019 by 5:00 PM. Replies due by 7/21/2019 by 5:00 PM. Administrative record due by 7/23/2019 at 5:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 7/24/2019 09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 09, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 18, 2019. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
19	ORDER UNSEALING DOCKET. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 18, 2019. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
20	Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice to Lee Gelernt. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
21	MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice of Anand Balakrishnan, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-13533138) filed by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab. (Balakrishnan, Anand) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
22	Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 21 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Anand Balakrishnan.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)	July 18, 2019	July 18, 2019 RECAP
23	NOTICE of Appearance by Scott G. Stewart (Stewart, Scott) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
24	MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice of Omar Jadwat, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-13537122) filed by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab. (Jadwat, Omar) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
25	Proposed Summons. (Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
26	Summons Issued as to Defendants Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, James McHenry, John P. Sanders, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security & U.S. Department of Justice. (tnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
27	Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 24 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Omar Jadwat.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
28	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ) filed by Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, James McHenry, John P. Sanders, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice. (Attachments: #(1) [Proposed] Order)(Reuveni, Erez) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019) 1 Proposed Order View on RECAP	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
29	NOTICE filed by Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, James McHenry, John P. Sanders, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice of Filing of the Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 5, # 6 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 6, # 7 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 6, # 8 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 8, # 9 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 9)(Reuveni, Erez) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019) 1 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 1 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 2 View on RECAP 3 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 3 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 4 View on RECAP 5 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 5 View on RECAP 6 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 6 View on RECAP 7 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 6 View on RECAP 8 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 8 View on RECAP 9 Exhibit Administrative Record Part 9 View on RECAP	July 19, 2019	July 19, 2019 RECAP
30	ORDERBecause the Government has now produced the administrative record and both parties will be able to rely upon it in making their arguments, and in order both to promptly provide clarity regarding the legality of the challenged regulation and to facilitate the parties' ability to seek appellate review should they so wish, the Court will inquire at the July 24, 2019 hearing whether there is any reason it should not construe Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. See Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) ("The district court may convert a hearing for a temporary restraining order into a hearing for a preliminary injunction as long as the adverse party had notice of the hearing."); Voth v. Mills, No. CV 09-423-HA, 2010 WL 1640401, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2010) (converting motion for temporary restraining order to motion for preliminary injunction "on the basis that defendants were given notice and an opportunity to respond to the [m]otion"). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Tigar, Jon) (Filed on 7/20/2019) (Entered: 07/20/2019)	July 20, 2019	July 20, 2019 PACER
	Order	July 20, 2019	July 20, 2019 PACER
31	REPLY (re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order) filed by Al Otro Lado, Central American Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab. (Gelernt, Lee) (Filed on 7/21/2019) (Entered: 07/21/2019)	July 21, 2019	July 21, 2019 RECAP
32	First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. Motion Hearing set for 8/5/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 01, 17th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 8/5/2019. Replies due by 8/12/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Murch, Marienna) (Filed on 7/21/2019) (Entered: 07/21/2019) 1 Exhibit View on RECAP	July 21, 2019	July 21, 2019 RECAP
33	First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief - CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 32 filed by Marienna Murch. Responses due by 8/5/2019. Replies due by 8/12/2019. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(Murch, Marienna) (Filed on 7/21/2019) Modified on 8/1/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2019) 1 Exhibit View on RECAP	July 21, 2019	July 21, 2019 RECAP

Case: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr

4:19-cv-04073 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details