Case: State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

4:19-cv-05210 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Filed Date: Aug. 14, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is one of several brought nationwide by states, counties, and non-profit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. In the fall of 2019, district court judges from across the country granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the government from implemen…

This case is one of several brought nationwide by states, counties, and non-profit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. In the fall of 2019, district court judges from across the country granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the government from implementing the public charge rule. But after multiple Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court issued stays of these injunctions, the public charge rule was implemented by the government on February 24, 2020. The District Court in this case issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the public charge rule. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, but vacated its nationwide application. However, the order affirming the injunction is currently stayed pending the Supreme Court's disposition on petitions for review from cases in the Second and Seventh Circuits. In addition, on February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order calling for DHS to review agency actions related to the implementation of the public charge rule. A little over a month later on March 9, 2021, DHS officially abandoned the rule and the petitions for certiorari were voluntarily dismissed by the government.

States Sue Over the Public Charge Rule

On August 14, 2019, fourteen states, led by Washington, California, and New York, filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiff states sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its acting secretary, in his official capacity, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its acting secretary, in his official capacity, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiff states sought relief to declare the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule (the Public Charge Rule or the Rule) vacated due to violations of the APA and unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The states also sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Rule from being enforced. The case was assigned to District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson.

On August 14, 2019, the DHS published a revised, final public charge rule, which defined personal circumstances that affect the ability of individuals and their families to successfully enter the U.S. or acquire legal permanent resident status (i.e., get a green card). The final rule increased the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded non-cash health, nutrition, and housing benefits. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that if an immigration officer found that a person seeking a visa was likely to become a public charge, that person was “inadmissible.”

The states alleged that the Rule redefined the term “public charge” in a manner contrary to congressional intent and agency interpretation. Since colonial times the term public charge was used to refer to someone permanently and primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. The states' complaint asserted that “the Rule departs from this original meaning by redefining a public charge as a noncitizen who receives common forms of federal and state public assistance, even in small amounts and for a short period of time.” The complaint further states that even though, on average, over 20% of the U.S. population participates in these programs each month, under the Rule, participation in these programs by legally present immigrants could block their path to citizenship. The states alleged that the Rule will deter lawfully present, legally eligible immigrants from participating in these programs, resulting in social and economic costs for the states.

The states filed an amended complaint on September 5, adding an allegation that the Rule was "motivated by Administration officials' intent to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin," in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The States Seek a Stay of the Rule and Preliminary Injunction

On September 6, 2019, the plaintiff states filed a motion to stay the Rule pending final adjudication of their claims on the merits or, in the alternative, for preliminary injunction. The Rule, unless prohibited, was set to go into effect on October 15, 2019. The states asserted that the Rule should not take effect while the legal action was still pending.

On September 20, 2019, defendants filed an opposition to the states’ motion, challenging the states’ standing to bring this action. Defendants also contended the Rule was long overdue after Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996 to “expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility.” Defendants further asserted that the Rule simply defined the term “public charge” to reflect Congress’ legislated policy and its delegation of broad authority to the Executive Branch to set the definition. Lastly, they argued the Rule was a product of a “well-reasoned process” and was of limited scope.

The District Court Grants a Nationwide Preliminary Injunction

On October 11, 2019, District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson granted the states’ Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review and Preliminary Injunction, finding that they “have shown that the status quo should be preserved pending resolution of this litigation.”

Judge Peterson held that the plaintiff states demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their first cause of action under the APA because evidence showed that Congress already rejected key components of the Rule and that the DHS overstepped its authority. Judge Peterson also held that the states demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that defendants “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in formulating the Public Charge Rule.” Furthermore, Judge Peterson held that there was a significant threat of irreparable injury, in the form of disenrollment from non-cash benefits, to the states and their residents if the Rule was to take effect as scheduled. Lastly, Judge Peterson found that “the balance of equities tips sharply in favor of the Plaintiff States” and that the threat of harm to the government was not enough to outweigh these other factors. Thus, the implementation of the Public Charge Rule was stayed in its entirety, pending entry of a final judgment in the suit, and DHS was enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Rule nationwide. 408 F.Supp.3d 1191.

On October 25, 2019, defendants sought a stay of the preliminary injunction. The defendants informed the court that it would seek appellate relief if the court did not act by November 14.

On October 30, 2019, the defendants appealed the Order Granting Stay and Preliminary Injunction to the Ninth Circuit.

On November 15, 2019, the defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, arguing that they are likely to prevail on appeal and that enjoining the implementation of the Rule will cause harm to the federal government and taxpayers.

On December 3, 2019, Judge Peterson denied the Defendants' Motion for Stay of the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal.

The Ninth Circuit Stays the Preliminary Injunction

On December 5, 2019, Circuit Judges Bybee, Ikuta, and Owens of the Ninth Circuit issued an Order granting the defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, concluding that defendants have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and public interest favor a stay. Judge Bybee, writing for the court, concluded that defendants are likely to succeed on its claim that the Rule is not contrary to law, reasoning that defendants' "decision to consider the receipt of in-kind government assistance as part of its totality-of-the-circumstances test is a reasonable interpretation of the INA and does not violate the Rehabilitation Act." Judge Bybee further held that the Rule is not arbitrary and capricious; that the defendants sufficiently considered the costs and benefits of changing the Rule and adequately explained the reasons for the change to the Rule. Finally, Judge Bybee concluded that the defendants will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay because the preliminary injunctions will force defendants to grant status to those not legally entitled to it, contrary to its obligations as defined by the Rule. 944 F.3d 773. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on December 19, 2019. The Ninth Circuit panel denied this motion and petition for rehearing en banc in February 2020.

The Supreme Court Stays All Nationwide Injunctions Enjoining Implementation of the Public Charge Rule

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court, in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, issued a stay on all nationwide injunctions enjoining the defendants from implementing the Rule. 140 S.Ct. 599. Following this decision, USCIS stated that the Rule is set to take effect on February 24, 2020.

On April 17, Judge Peterson issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel defendants to produce a privilege log and discovery regarding their equal protection claim. Judge Peterson found that defendants "sought and received input from other federal agencies, yet did not include those communications in the administrative record." Moreover, Judge Peterson concluded that "[g]iven the inquiry required to determine whether the relevant decisionmakers manifested a discriminatory purpose, the Court finds that reasonable discovery beyond the administrative record is appropriate."

The defendants moved to stay the order on May 5. Judge Peterson denied the stay in part on May 13, though he granted them extended time to produce the privilege log.

Defendants Move to Dismiss; District Court Mostly Denies

On May 22, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defendants asserted that the amended complaint should be dismissed in light of the Ninth Circuit's "opinion concluding that the Rule falls well within the Executive Branch’s discretion" under the INA and is not arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims are not justiciable and that "plaintiffs' allegations do not suggest that DHS issued the Rule 'because of' any alleged 'adverse effects upon an identifiable' racial or ethnic group."

Judge Peterson granted the motion in part on September 14, 2020, dismissing the plaintiffs' ultra vires claim with leave to amend by October 16 because it lacked "plausible and detailed allegations that DHS acted outside of its legal authority." Judge Peterson then denied dismissal of the APA claims because all the Court had already ruled that were likely to succeed on the merits. She also held that the statements made by high-level officials combined with the acknowledgement of a discriminatory effect were sufficient grounds for denying dismissal of the equal protection claim.

Defendants moved for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss on October 8. Citing a Ninth Circuit ruling decided on the same day as Judge Peterson's order, Ramos v. Wolf (975 F.3d 872), defendants argued that the controlling law for dismissal of equal protection claims had changed.

Ninth Circuit Affirms the Preliminary Injunction, But Vacates Nationwide Application

On September 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit heard arguments for the district court's stayed preliminary injunction with a new panel of judges (Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, William Fletcher, and Lawrence VanDyke). On December 2, 2020, citing recent other circuit court decisions, it issued an order and a 2-1 opinion affirming the preliminary injunction but vacating the nationwide application of it. The Court also affirmed the preliminary injunction of a related case, State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 981 F.3d 742. Writing for the majority, Judge Schroeder first concluded that the plaintiff states had standing because they were suffering financial harm from immigrants shifting to state and local aid. Next, she found that the states demonstrated a high likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the Rule's definition of public charge was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of the statute and was arbitrary and capricious. She also found that the remaining preliminary injunction factors favored the plaintiff states. Finally, she determined that the nationwide injunction was not appropriate because identical injunctions had been and were still being litigated in other federal district and circuit courts.

Judge VanDyke dissented from the majority's analysis for the same reasons as the December 5, 2019 decision, citing the Supreme Court's stays from January, a dissenting opinion from a similar ruling in the Seventh Circuit (962 F.3d 208), and a contrary ruling from the Fourth Circuit (971 F.3d 220).

On January 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted a request by the government to stay its December 2, 2020 order affirming the preliminary injunctions, pending the Supreme Court's disposition on petitions for review from the Second and Seventh Circuits. The new public charge rule was to remain in effect until the Supreme Court ruled on the petitions.

On January 22, 2021, the defendants filed a petition to the Supreme Court for review of the preliminary injunction.

On February 1, 2021, Judge Peterson denied the government's motion to reconsider the Court's September 14 order granting in part and denying in part its motion to dismiss. The Court found that, even in light of the Ramos decision, there was sufficient evidence here of discriminatory intent to prevent dismissal.

The Rule is Officially Abandoned and Vacated

On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order calling for DHS to review agency actions related to the implementation of the public charge rule. The following day, the government notified the Court that it would be engaging in discussion with the plaintiff states over how this would impact litigation.

On March 9, 2021, DHS formally abandoned the rule. The government voluntarily dismissed its appeal to the Seventh Circuit, lifting the stay of the Northern District of Illinois' November 2, 2020 decision vacating the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide from (Cook County v. Wolf). That same day, at all parties' requests, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition for Cook County, as well as similar petitions for the Ninth (City and County of San Francisco v. USCIS) and Second (New York v. DHS) Circuits.

On March 10, eleven state attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, moved to intervene as defendants in the Ninth Circuit. They filed similar motions in the Seventh and Fourth Circuits, and a day later on March 11, they filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the government and stay the judgment from Cook County.

On March 11, Judge Peterson stayed proceedings until April 12, 2021.

On April 9, 2021 the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to deny the motion to intervene without an opinion. 2021 WL 1310846. However, Judge Vandyke wrote a lengthy dissent, arguing that the Biden administration was now colluding with the plaintiffs in the Public Charge lawsuits, making their interests at odds with the interests of the states who were seeking to intervene. He explained that this case was clearly still worth pursuing, since it had sufficient merit to warrant Supreme Court review and the government was circumventing APA requirements. Moreover, even though the Rule had been vacated, there was still a chance the Supreme Court may reverse that decision, making this lawsuit not yet moot.

As of April 15, 2021, the Public Charge Final Rule has been abandoned and vacated nationwide. The parties are currently conferring on how this will impact litigation. The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Aaron Gurley (5/29/2020)

Jack Kanarek (4/15/2021)

Related Cases

State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Southern District of New York (2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16059259/parties/state-of-washington-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/


Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Peterson, Rosanna Malouf (Washington)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

VanDyke, Lawrence James Christopher (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Balderas, Hector (New Mexico)

Bays, Nathan (Washington)

Brooks, Angela R. (Massachusetts)

Coates, Spencer W (Washington)

Cosgriff, John A. (Massachusetts)

Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Peterson, Rosanna Malouf (Washington)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

VanDyke, Lawrence James Christopher (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Balderas, Hector (New Mexico)

Bays, Nathan (Washington)

Brooks, Angela R. (Massachusetts)

Coates, Spencer W (Washington)

Cosgriff, John A. (Massachusetts)

Crisalli, Paul Michael (Washington)

Detrick, Ralph J. (Minnesota)

Dunlap, Jeffery Paul (Maryland)

Ellison, Keith P. (Texas)

Ferguson, Robert W. (Washington)

Frosh, Brian E. (Maryland)

Goldstein, Aaron R. (Delaware)

Grewal, Gurbir S. (New Jersey)

Hammoud, Fadwa Alawieh (Michigan)

Hardy, Ryan Spreague (Virginia)

Harris, Toni L. (Michigan)

Healey, Maura T. (Massachusetts)

Herring, Mark R. (Virginia)

Hill, Lauren E. (Rhode Island)

Horton, Monica A. (Delaware)

Jennings, Kathleen L. (District of Columbia)

Jones, Zachary P. (Washington)

Kallen, Michelle S. (Virginia)

Kirshon, Ilona (Delaware)

Lloyd, Alice Anne (Virginia)

Maestas, Tania (New Mexico)

Moramarco, Glenn J (New Jersey)

Neronha, Peter F. (Rhode Island)

Nessel, Dana M. (Michigan)

Olson, Eric (Colorado)

Ovens, Bryan (Washington)

Raoul, Kwame (Illinois)

Roberson-Young, Elizabeth (Illinois)

Samuels, Jessica Merry (Virginia)

Saunders, Jonelle (District of Columbia)

Siddiqui, Mamoona Hafeez (Virginia)

Soueid, Marie (New Jersey)

Sprung, Jeffrey Todd (Washington)

Stern, Heidi Parry (Nevada)

Taylor, Abigail B. (Massachusetts)

Tomisser, Rene David (Washington)

Urena, David (Massachusetts)

Weissman, Joshua (Washington)

Wright, Christian Douglas (Delaware)

Young, Lili A. (Hawaii)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Berman, Keri L. (District of Columbia)

Cholera, Kuntal (District of Columbia)

Kolsky, Joshua (District of Columbia)

Lynch, Jason C. (District of Columbia)

Saslaw, Alexandra Rachel (District of Columbia)

Soskin, Eric J. (District of Columbia)

Von Bokern, Jordan L (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)

Aguilar, Diana A. (California)

Bailey, Regan (District of Columbia)

Chan, Denny W. (California)

Chiang, Emily (Washington)

Cohen, Andrew Paul (Massachusetts)

Curet, Tess L. (California)

DeFilipp, Kristyn (Massachusetts)

Digiacinto, Darren Michael (Washington)

Duffy, Barbara J. (Washington)

Durbin, Christopher B. (Washington)

Espinoza-Madrigal, Ivan (Massachusetts)

Gardner, David P. (Washington)

Hirschhorn, Russell L. (New York)

Huseny, Sadik Harry (California)

Isserlis, Nancy L. (Washington)

Kean, Natalie Elise (District of Columbia)

Krumplitsch, Susan Marie (California)

Lawrence, Paul J. (Washington)

London, Andrew M. (Massachusetts)

Lovejoy, Brittany N. (California)

Lowe, Justin Jonathan (Massachusetts)

Marotta, Sean (District of Columbia)

Masters, Owen (District of Columbia)

McDermott, Kathleen (District of Columbia)

Nash, Emily Joanne (Massachusetts)

Parmet, Wendy Ellen (Massachusetts)

Plutshack, Alexandra B. (California)

Power, Vanessa Soriano (Washington)

Ray, Sarah M. (California)

Ross, Douglas C. (Washington)

Sampson, Lauren (Massachusetts)

Sellstrom, Oren M. (California)

Sprague, Charles Ferer (California)

Springer, Christian (District of Columbia)

Stameshkin, Elizabeth L. (California)

Virgien, Kyle A. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:19-cv-05210

0:19-35914

Docket [PACER]

March 3, 2021

March 3, 2021

Docket
1

4:19-cv-05210

Complaint

Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Complaint
31

4:19-cv-05210

First Amended Complaint

Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Complaint
162

4:19-cv-05210

Order Granting Plaintiff States' Motion for Section 705 Stay and Preliminary Injunction

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

2019 WL 5100717

Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Order/Opinion
27

19-17213

Order

City and County of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Dec. 5, 2019

Dec. 5, 2019

Order/Opinion
248

4:19-cv-05210

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 14, 2020

Order/Opinion
14

19-17213

4:19-cv-04717

Opinion

City of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

981 F.3d 742

Dec. 2, 2020

Dec. 2, 2020

Order/Opinion
283

4:19-cv-05210

Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration

State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Feb. 1, 2021

Feb. 1, 2021

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16059259/state-of-washington-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/

Last updated May 29, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400; Receipt # 0980-3237736) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/14/2019)

1 Exhibit Exhibit A

View on RECAP

2 Summons

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

4 Summons

View on PACER

5 Summons

View on PACER

6 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

RECAP

Notice of Judge Assignment

Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

PACER

Notice of Judge Assignment. Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson assigned to case. (LR, Case Administrator)

Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

PACER
2

Summons Issued as to United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Issued as to Kevin K McAleenan, # 2 Summons Issued as to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, # 3 Summons Issued as to Kenneth T Cuccinelli, II)(LR, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/14/2019)

1 Summons Issued as to Kevin K McAleenan

View on PACER

2 Summons Issued as to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

View on PACER

3 Summons Issued as to Kenneth T Cuccinelli, II

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

PACER
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE as to 1 Complaint, filed by State of Washington. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

Aug. 15, 2019

Aug. 15, 2019

PACER
4

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Glenn J. Moramarco. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3242349. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/21/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

PACER
5

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF No. 4, Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Glenn J. Moramarco, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, is hereby added as counsel for Plaintiff State of New Jersey. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

PACER
6

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Michelle S. Kallen. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3245255. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
7

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Alice Anne Lloyd. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3245273. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
8

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Monica A. Horton. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3245281. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
9

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 8, Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Michelle S. Kallen, Alice Anne Lloyd, and Monica A. Horton, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, are hereby added as counsel for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia and Plaintiff State of Delaware, respectively. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on these matters. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
10

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: R.J. Detrick. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3246371. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
11

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Ryan Spreague Hardy. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3246908. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

PACER
12

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Fadwa Alawieh Hammoud. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3247011. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

PACER
13

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Toni Lynn Harris. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3247015. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

PACER
14

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, and 13, Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Ralph J. Detrick, Ryan Spreague Hardy, Fadwa Alawieh Hammoud, and Toni Lynn Harris, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, are hereby added as counsel for Defendants State of Minnesota, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel, on behalf of the People of Michigan, respectively. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

PACER
15

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Tania Maestas. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3248347. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

PACER
16

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF No. 15, Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Tania Maestas, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, is hereby added as counsel for Plaintiff State of New Mexico. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

PACER
17

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Lauren E. Hill. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3248614. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

PACER
18

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Eric R. Olson. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3248762. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

PACER
19

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Heidi Parry Stern. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3248990. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

PACER
20

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Jeffrey Paul Dunlap. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3249075. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

PACER
21

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20, Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Lauren E. Hill, Eric R. Olson, Heidi Parry Stern, and Jeffrey Paul Dunlap, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, are hereby added as counsel for Plaintiffs State of Rhode Island, State of Colorado, State of Nevada, and State of Maryland, respectively. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER
22

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Mamoona Hafeez Siddiqui. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3249930. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 8/30/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER
23

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER
24

ORDER granting ECF No. 23, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, upon a finding of good cause under LCivR 7(f)(5) and (i)(2), on an expedited basis. Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of their anticipated Motion for Stay or Preliminary Injunction of no more than 60 pages. Amicus briefs filed in connection with Plaintiffs' motion shall be no longer than 30 pages. Correspondingly, Defendants may file an overlength response of up to 60 pages. This text-only entry constitutes the Courts ruling on this matter. TEXT ORDER - NO PDF ATTACHED Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Peterson, Rosanna) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER
25

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Angela R. Brooks. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3250645. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER
26

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Abigail B. Taylor. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3250654. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER
27

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: David Urena. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3250696. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER
28

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Elizabeth Roberson-Young. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3251179. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER
29

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF No. 22, Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Mamoona Hafeez Siddiqui, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, is hereby added as counsel for the Commonwealth of Virginia. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Sept. 3, 2019

Sept. 3, 2019

PACER
30

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF Nos. 25, 26, 27, and 28, Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Angela R. Brooks, Abigail B. Taylor, David Urena, and Elizabeth Roberson-Young, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, are hereby added as counsel for Plaintiffs Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Illinois, respectively. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

PACER
31

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

1 Exhibit Exhibit A

View on PACER

Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

PACER
32

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Lili A. Young. Filing fee $ 200, receipt number 0980-3253387. by State of Washington. Motion Hearing set for 9/5/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Tomisser, Rene) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

PACER
33

TEXT-ONLY ORDER (no PDF will issue) granting ECF No. 32, Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Lili A. Young, having applied for pro hac vice status and being found to meet the requirements for pro hac vice membership, is hereby added as counsel for State of Hawai'i. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ruling on the matter. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (MS, Judicial Assistant) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
34

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 10/3/2019 at 10:00 AM in Richland Courtroom 189 before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

1 Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
35

DECLARATION by Nathan Bays in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Z, # 2 Exhibit AA-ZZ, # 3 Exhibit AAA-DDD)(Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

1 Exhibit A-Z

View on PACER

2 Exhibit AA-ZZ

View on PACER

3 Exhibit AAA-DDD

View on PACER

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
36

DECLARATION by Tom Wong in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
37

DECLARATION by Taylor Linke in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
38

DECLARATION by Joshua Sharfstein in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
39

DECLARATION by Erin Emerson in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
40

DECLARATION by Elisa Neira in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
41

DECLARATION by Catherine Betts in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
42

DECLARATION by Dr. Ngozi Ezike in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
43

DECLARATION by Pam MacEwan in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
44

DECLARATION by Judith Persichilli in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
45

DECLARATION by Sharon Boyle in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
46

DECLARATION by Margaret Kelly in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
47

DECLARATION by Theresa Eagleson in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
48

DECLARATION by Richard Whitley in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
49

DECLARATION by Joseph Curtatone and Mary Skipper in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
50

DECLARATION by Maria Lucia Chavez in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
51

DECLARATION by Elizabeth Winders in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
52

DECLARATION by Sarah Polk, M.D., Sc.M. in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
53

DECLARATION by Kristen Hanulcik in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
54

DECLARATION by Kelli Bohanon in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
55

DECLARATION by Marie Zimmerman in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
56

DECLARATION by Rachel Pryor in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
57

DECLARATION by Leanne Berge in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
58

DECLARATION by Stephen Groff in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
59

DECLARATION by Nate Clark in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
60

DECLARATION by Teresita Batayola in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
61

DECLARATION by Paula Basta in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
62

DECLARATION by Stacy Twite in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
63

DECLARATION by Katrina Hotrum-Lopez in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
64

DECLARATION by Grace B. Hou in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
65

DECLARATION by Lacy Fehrenbach in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
66

DECLARATION by Sarah K. Peterson in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
67

DECLARATION by S. Duke Storen in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
68

DECLARATION by Jovon Perry in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
69

DECLARATION by Eve Sternberg in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
70

DECLARATION by Angela Medrano in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
71

DECLARATION by M. Norman Oliver in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
72

DECLARATION by Courtney Hawkins in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
73

DECLARATION by Priya Tahiliani in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
74

DECLARATION by Amy Hundley in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
75

DECLARATION by Raymond Fitzgerald in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
76

DECLARATION by Maureen G. Ohle in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
77

DECLARATION by Roberta Rubin in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
78

DECLARATION by Ryan Baumtrog in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
79

DECLARATION by Patrick Carey in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
80

DECLARATION by Erik Johnston in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
81

DECLARATION by Emily Grossman in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
82

DECLARATION by Bill Moss in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
83

DECLARATION by Mary Bourque in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

RECAP
84

DECLARATION by Daron Korte in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
85

DECLARATION by Amy Hundley in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Sept. 6, 2019

Sept. 6, 2019

PACER
86

DECLARATION by Richard Stolz in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Sprung, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER
87

Errata filed by All Plaintiffs Re 86 DECLARATION by Richard Stolz in Support Re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Errata)(Sprung, Jeffrey) Modified on 9/9/2019: Add additional document link. (TR, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/09/2019)

1 Errata

View on PACER

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER
88

Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Matthew H Adams on behalf of Health Law Advocates (Adams, Matthew) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER
89

MOTION LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NONPROFIT ANTI-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re 24 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,, by National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National Domestic Violence Hotline, API Chaya, Battered Womens Justice Project, Sexual Violence Law Center, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, Futures Without Violence, Legal Momentum, Womens Legal Defense and Education Fund, Tahirih Justice Center, Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic, Violence Free Colorado, Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, SC Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Texas Council on Family Violence, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence,, Jane Doe Inc., Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, Illinois Accountability Initiative, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Jewish Women, Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, Mississippi Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Legal Voice, New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Casa de Esperanza, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Ujima, Inc., National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. Motion Hearing set for 10/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Brief, # 2 Appendix Appendix A to Brief of Amici, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Paul) Modified on 9/13/2019 See Praecipe ECF No. 89 . (VR, Courtroom Deputy). (Entered: 09/09/2019)

1 Amicus Brief

View on PACER

2 Appendix Appendix A to Brief of Amici

View on PACER

3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER
90

MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Health Law Advocates and Other Organizations Interested in Public Health in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Health Law Advocates, Health Care For All, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Northeastern University's Center for Health Policy and Law, Health in Justice Action Lab, Public Health Law Watch, Northwest Health Law Advocates, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Korean Community Center of the East Bay, California Immigrant Policy Center, Kentucky Equal Justice Center, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Florida Health Justice Project, Maine Immigrant Rights Coalition, New York Immigration Coalition, Community Healthcare Network, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Treatment Action Group, Welcome Project, Families USA, UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc., Community Catalyst. Motion Hearing set for 10/3/2019 Without Oral Argument before Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Adams, Matthew) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Washington

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 14, 2019

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Fourteen states led by Washington, California and New York.

Plaintiff Type(s):

State Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal

Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2019 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Admission - procedure

U.S. citizenship - acquiring

Visas - criteria

Visas - procedures