Case: Florida v. United States

3:21-cv-01066 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Filed Date: Sept. 28, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the government’s policies and practices concerning undocumented immigrants at the United States-Mexico border. On September 28, 2021, the State of Florida filed this lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Florida sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Citing statistics that the Biden Administration was releasing into the country’s interior a radically greater number of immigrants than the Trump Administration did, Florida sought to enjoin the Biden Administration’s alleged policy: "[of] releasing arriving [undocumented immigrants] subject to mandatory detention, of paroling [undocumented immigrants] without engaging in case-by-case adjudication or abiding by the other limits on that authority, and of failing to serve charging documents or initiate removal proceedings against [paroled undocumented immigrants].” Florida also sought a declaratory judgment that the Biden Administration was violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and requested costs and attorney’s fees. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II presided over the case.

On December 3, 2021, the government moved to transfer the case from the Pensacola Division to the Tallahassee Division because venue was improper in the Pensacola Division. In the alternative, the government claimed that the case should be transferred because the Tallahassee Division would be more convenient. The same day, the government moved to dismiss Florida’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

On January 18, 2022, after briefing by both sides, the court denied the government’s motion to transfer venue. The court explained that a state “resides at every point within its boundaries.” Thus, the court held, Florida resided in the Pensacola Division and venue there was proper. The court then considered the factors relevant to a transfer for convenience. Concluding that most of these factors were neutral but that one—the respect accorded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum—weighed against the transfer, the court denied the motion.

According to Florida, in November 2021, the government issued an internal memo stating that it would cease issuing “notices to report.” These notices effectively instructed people to voluntarily contact immigration services at some later date after arrest. In its original complaint, Florida had challenged the practice of issuing these notices, rather than official charging documents, before releasing detained persons. Thus, Florida filed an amended complaint on February 1, shortly after it claimed to have learned of this memo. The next day, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The plaintiffs amended complaint addressed the court's rulings on the motion to transfer. The amended complaint also directly addressed President Biden's parole and alternatives to detention (ATD) policies. These policies included a non-detention policy, which released immigrants from detention. The parole policy enabled Department of Homeland Security agents to allow immigrants to enter the U.S. without being admitted, but to parole them on a case-by-case basis due to "humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit." The ATD policy included methods like ankle monitoring, GPS tracking, and a phone app.

On February 24, the government moved to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Biden. The government argued that the two cases dealt with overlapping issues and thus the interests of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent judgments counseled in favor of a stay. On March 9, Florida filed a response arguing that the cases were not related enough to justify a stay, that the government had already created delays for Florida by mooting its first complaint, that Florida continued to suffer ongoing harm from the government’s allegedly unlawful policies, and that the government, given the lack of impending discovery obligations or filing deadlines, would not be harmed in the absence of a stay. Two days later, the court denied the motion to stay. The district judge explained that the case had “languished” for long enough and that the benefits of the Supreme Court potentially ruling or commenting on overlapping issues were outweighed by the ongoing harm to Florida from the government’s challenged policies.

On March 7, 2022, the government filed a motion to dismiss Florida’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The government argued that Florida lacked standing because (among other reasons) the state’s alleged injury—the cost of providing government services to undocumented immigrants who migrated to Florida—was generalized rather than particularized and was not fairly traceable to the government’s challenged policies, as it depended on “a string of third-party actions.” The government also alleged that Florida’s claims were not justiciable because (1) the challenged practices did not constitute final agency action and were committed to agency discretion, (2) the INA barred the court’s jurisdiction over the claims Florida raised in this case, and (3) that Florida, as a plaintiff, did not fall within the “zone of interests” of the INA.

Next, the government argued that Florida failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. In response to Florida’s claims that DHS policies and practices were not in “accordance with the law” or “in excess of statutory authority,” the government argued that DHS had substantial law enforcement discretion that was not displaced by the INA, that the text of the INA did not support Florida’s contention that the relevant statutory provisions required detention and the initiation of removal proceedings in all cases, and that Florida’s evidence did not support the conclusion that DHS was abusing its parole authority. In response to Florida’s claims that DHS’ parole-related policies were arbitrary and capricious, the government argued that its challenged practices did not represent a cohesive program or policy and were instead individual parole decisions that the court lacked jurisdiction to review. In response to Florida’s claim that DHS failed to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking for their challenged policies, the government argued that this procedure was only required for rulemaking, that its individual immigration-related determinations were adjudications, not rules, and that, if the alleged policies existed, they would constitute “general statements of policy” rather than rules.

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on May 4, 2022. After further proceedings, including a motion to quash filed by the defendants on August 19, 2022, and an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to quash on September 2, 2022, both Florida and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment on October 3, 2022. Judge Wetherell denied these motions on November 18, 2022. In his order, Judge Wetherell wrote that he denied the motions to dismiss due to: (a) the existence of genuine disputes of material facts (the plaintiff's standing and the existence, operation, and validity of the "non-detention policy"), (b) unpersuasive arguments about justiciability and redressability from the defendant, and (c) the court's desire to defer judicial review of the policy at issue in this case to trial or after trial.

The first day of the bench trial occurred on January 9, 2023. This trial was four days long, ending on January 12, 2023. As of February 13, 2023, the defendant asked for an extension of time to file post-trial briefs. This motion for extension was granted.

On March 8, 2023, Judge Wetherell entered a judgment in favor of Florida on some counts and in favor of the government on others. Judge Wetherell held that the parole and ATD policies were unlawful and not a valid exercise of the government's power, so he vacated the policies and remanded them to DHS. He also held that while the non-detention policy did exist, it was not subject to judicial review. The judgment was stayed for seven days to allow time for the government to appeal. __ F. Supp. 3d __; 2023 WL 2399883.

The government appealed the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 5, 2023, and subsequently filed an emergency motion to stay the judgment a week later in the district court. The district court denied the motion the next day, noting that the government’s delay in filing the appeal and motion for stay indicated it was not experiencing irreparable harm from the judgment. The court also pointed to the government’s claim that it had already ended the ATD and parole policies before the court vacated them, and rejected the argument that the government might need to restart the policies. The court also concluded that the government would likely lose on appeal.

Florida then filed a cross-appeal to the 11th Circuit on May 16, 2023. Three days later, the government moved to expedite the appeal and consolidate this appeal with another case, Florida v. Mayorkas. In that case, the same district judge had enjoined the DHS’s “parole with conditions” policy, which was very similar to the ATD policy. The government asked the 11th Circuit to stay that injunction and the order in this case.

On May 20, 2023, the 11th Circuit granted the motions to consolidate and to expedite the appeal. The 11th Circuit denied the motion for a stay of both orders on June 5, 2023, holding that the government had not shown it would experience irreparable harm without a stay. The 11th Circuit concluded that the policies at issue were not as essential as the government claimed, and that the government’s various procedural delays confirmed this. 2023 WL 3813774.

	Document
1 3:21-cv-01066	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State of Florida v. the United States of America	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 Complaint
13 3:21-cv-01066	Order Denying Motion to Transfer Venue State of Florida v. the United States of America	Jan. 18, 2022	Jan. 18, 2022 Order/Opinion
16 3:21-cv-01066	First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State of Florida v. the United States of America	Feb. 1, 2022	Feb. 1, 2022 Complaint
25 3:21-cv-01066	Order Denying Stay State of Florida v. the United States of America	March 11, 2022	March 11, 2022 Order/Opinion
82 3:21-cv-01066	Order	Sept. 2, 2022	Sept. 2, 2022 Order/Opinion
117 3:21-cv-01066	Order Ruling on Pending Motions and Establishing Pretrial Conference Date	Nov. 18, 2022	Nov. 18, 2022 Order/Opinion
157 3:21-cv-01066	Opinion and Order	March 8, 2023	March 8, 2023 Order/Opinion
165 3:21-cv-01066	Order Denying Stay State of Florida v. United States of America	May 13, 2023	May 13, 2023 Order/Opinion
38 23-11528	Order of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	June 5, 2023	June 5, 2023 Order/Opinion 2023 WL 2023

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AFLNDC-6362480.), filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons) (PERCIVAL, JAMES) (Entered: 09/28/2021) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Summons View on PACER	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 Clearinghouse
2	DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: The parties in the above-referenced case were added to the docket incorrectly and will be corrected by the clerk. Party names are to be entered in all caps and without punctuation. For future reference: Please review the procedure for adding/creating new parties in the "Style Guide for Electronic Case Filing" and/or chapter 10 of the "CM/ECF Attorney User's Guide," available at www.flnd.uscourts.gov. (mb) (Entered: 09/28/2021)	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 PACER
3	Summons Issued as to UNITED STATES (Attachments: # 1 Summons - ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, # 2 Summons - TAE JOHNSON, # 3 Summons - TROY MILLER, # 4 Summons - UR M JADDOU, # 5 Summons - US CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, # 6 Summons - US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, # 7 Summons - US DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, # 8 Summons - US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT), U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (mb) (Entered: 09/28/2021)	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 PACER
4	NOTICE of Service by STATE OF FLORIDA re 3 Summons Issued as to USA, 1 Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Certified Mail Receipts, # 2 Exhibit B. Delivery Confirmation) (PERCIVAL, JAMES) (Entered: 10/18/2021)	Oct. 18, 2021	Oct. 18, 2021 PACER
5	MOTION to Transfer Case to Tallahasee Division by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/17/2021). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer, # 2 Exhibit A - November 2, 2021 CBP Memorandum) (DARROW, JOSEPH) Modified on 12/6/2021: terminated due to Amended Motion(jfj). (Entered: 12/03/2021)	Dec. 3, 2021	Dec. 3, 2021 PACER
6	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF JURISDICTION by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit A - November 2, 2021 CBP Memorandum, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 12/03/2021) 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss View on RECAP 2 Exhibit A - November 2, 2021 CBP Memorandum View on RECAP 3 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	Dec. 3, 2021	Dec. 3, 2021 PACER
7	Amended MOTION to Transfer Case to Tallahasee Division (amended to include proposed order) by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/17/2021). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue, # 2 Exhibit A - November 2, 2021 CBP Memorandum, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 12/03/2021)	Dec. 3, 2021	Dec. 3, 2021 PACER
	Set Deadlines Re: 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF JURISDICTION (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/17/2021). (jfj)	Dec. 3, 2021	Dec. 3, 2021 PACER
8	NOTICE of Appearance by NATALIE CHRISTMAS on behalf of STATE OF FLORIDA (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 12/10/2021)	Dec. 10, 2021	Dec. 10, 2021 PACER
9	Joint MOTION for Extensions of Time and Leave to File a Reply Brief by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 12/10/2021)	Dec. 10, 2021	Dec. 10, 2021 PACER
10	ORDER Granting 9 Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to File Reply Brief. Plaintiff shall have until December 27, 2021, to respond to Defendants' motion to transfer. Defendants may file a reply in support of the motion to transfer on or before January 10, 2022. The reply shall be limited to 3,200 words. Plaintiff shall have 14 days after the Court rules on the motion to transfer to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss or to file an amended complaint. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 12/13/21. (jfj) (Entered: 12/13/2021)	Dec. 13, 2021	Dec. 13, 2021 RECAP
	Set Deadlines/Hearings. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: re: Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Transfer due by 12/27/2021) . Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer due by 1/10/2022. (jfj)	Dec. 13, 2021	Dec. 13, 2021 PACER
11	RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 Amended MOTION to Transfer Case to Tallahasee Division (amended to include proposed order) filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 12/27/2021)	Dec. 27, 2021	Dec. 27, 2021 PACER
12	REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 Amended MOTION to Transfer Case to Tallahasee Division (amended to include proposed order) filed by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 01/10/2022)	Jan. 10, 2022	Jan. 10, 2022 PACER
	ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II notified that action is needed Re: 12 Reply to Response to Motion, 11 Response in Opposition to Motion, 7 Amended MOTION to Transfer Case to Tallahasee Division (jfj)	Jan. 11, 2022	Jan. 11, 2022 PACER
13	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Defendants' amended motion to transfer venue (Doc. 7 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this Order to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 6 ) or to file an amended complaint. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 01/18/22. (Plaintiff to file response to motion to dismiss or an amended complaint by 2/1/2022.) (jfj) (Entered: 01/18/2022)	Jan. 18, 2022	Jan. 18, 2022 Clearinghouse
14	NOTICE of Appearance by MARIE ARMSTRONG MOYLE on behalf of UNITED STATES (MOYLE, MARIE) (Entered: 01/27/2022)	Jan. 27, 2022	Jan. 27, 2022 PACER
15	NOTICE of Appearance by HENRY CHARLES WHITAKER on behalf of STATE OF FLORIDA (WHITAKER, HENRY) (Entered: 02/01/2022)	Feb. 1, 2022	Feb. 1, 2022 PACER
16	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants., filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (PERCIVAL, JAMES) (Entered: 02/01/2022)	Feb. 1, 2022	Feb. 1, 2022 Clearinghouse
	ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II notified that action is needed Re: 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. (jfj)	Feb. 1, 2022	Feb. 1, 2022 PACER
17	ORDER. Defendants' 6 motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to answer or otherwise respond to the 16 amended complaint. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 02/02/22.(Answer due by 2/16/2022.) (jfj) (Entered: 02/02/2022)	Feb. 2, 2022	Feb. 2, 2022 PACER
18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 17 Order,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/07/2022)	Feb. 7, 2022	Feb. 7, 2022 PACER
19	ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME re 18 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Defendants shall have until March 2, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 02/08/22. (jfj) (Entered: 02/08/2022)	Feb. 8, 2022	Feb. 8, 2022 PACER
20	MOTION to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Case) (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/24/2022)	Feb. 24, 2022	Feb. 24, 2022 RECAP
	Set Deadlines/Hearings re 20 Motion to Stay the Case Pending the Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/10/2022). (alb)	Feb. 24, 2022	Feb. 24, 2022 PACER
21	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 16 Amended Complaint Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time by Five Days to File Answer or Response to First Amended Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 03/01/2022)	March 1, 2022	March 1, 2022 PACER
22	ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME. Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time (Doc. 21 ), is GRANTED, and Defendants shall have until March 7, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 03/02/22. (jfj) (Entered: 03/02/2022)	March 2, 2022	March 2, 2022 PACER
23	MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction And Failure To State A Claim by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY MILLER, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/21/2022). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order) (DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 03/07/2022) 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion View on RECAP 2 Proposed Order View on PACER	March 7, 2022	March 7, 2022 PACER
24	RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 03/09/2022)	March 9, 2022	March 9, 2022 RECAP
24	RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 03/09/2022)	March 9, 2022	March 9, 2022 RECAP
24	RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 03/09/2022)	March 9, 2022	March 9, 2022 RECAP
	ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II notified that action is needed Re: 20 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Texas v. Biden and 24 Response in Opposition to Motion. (jfj)	March 10, 2022	March 10, 2022 PACER
25	ORDER DENYING STAY. Defendants' motion to stay 20 is DENIED. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 03/11/22. (jfj) (Entered: 03/11/2022)	March 11, 2022	March 11, 2022 Clearinghouse
26	INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 3/25/2022. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 4/25/2022. Discovery due by 7/11/2022. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 03/11/22. (jfj) (Entered: 03/11/2022)	March 11, 2022	March 11, 2022 RECAP
27	NOTICE of Appearance by KAREN ANN BRODEEN on behalf of STATE OF FLORIDA (BRODEEN, KAREN) (Entered: 03/16/2022)	March 16, 2022	March 16, 2022 PACER
28	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction And Failure To State A Claim by STATE OF FLORIDA. (CHRISTMAS, NATALIE) (Entered: 03/17/2022)	March 17, 2022	March 17, 2022 PACER
29	ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME re 28 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time. The motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have until March 28, 2022, to file its response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 03/18/22. (Response to motion due by by 3/28/2022.) (jfj) (Entered: 03/18/2022)	March 18, 2022	March 18, 2022 PACER
30	NOTICE of Appearance by ERIN T RYAN on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR M JADDOU, TAE D JOHNSON, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UNITED STATES, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (RYAN, ERIN) (Entered: 03/22/2022)	March 22, 2022	March 22, 2022 PACER
31	RESPONSE to Motion re 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction And Failure To State A Claim filed by STATE OF FLORIDA. (PERCIVAL, JAMES) (Entered: 03/25/2022)	March 25, 2022	March 25, 2022 RECAP
	ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II notified that action is needed Re: 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction And Failure To State A Claim and 31 Response to Motion. (jfj)	March 28, 2022	March 28, 2022 PACER

Case: Florida v. United States

3:21-cv-01066 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details