Texas v. United States

7 Citing briefs

  1. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al v. Burwell et al

    REPLY

    Filed December 2, 2016

    v. Perez, No. 5:16-cv-00066-C, 2016 WL 3766121, *46 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016) (Cummings, J.); Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 677–78 (S.D. Tex.) (Hanen, J.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those stated in Plaintiffs prior briefs, the Court should issue a preliminary injunction against the definition of “on the basis of sex” in the Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 92.

  2. State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

    MOTION to Stay re Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 58 Order on Motion for Injunction and Unopposed Request for Expedited Consideration

    Filed November 7, 2016

    It explained that, based on the specific nature of the policy under review, there was a “substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move among states.” 809 F.3d at 188. Its conclusion was thus limited to the immigration context, where individuals’ beneficiary status travels with them when they move to a new state.

  3. State of Hawaii v. Trump

    MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Neal Katyal appearing for Plaintiffs Ismail Elshikh, State of Hawaii

    Filed March 8, 2017

    Id. “[S]uch a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166-67 (citing Texas, 809 F.3d at 187-188); Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65-1 Filed 03/08/17 Page 59 of 61 PageID #: 1338 51 see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (requiring “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (emphasis added)).

  4. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al v. Burwell et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed October 21, 2016

    “This factor overlaps considerably with the previous one, and most of the same analysis applies.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 187. It is simpler for states to main- tain the status quo than to create and enforce new policies, but change them later.

  5. National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Perez et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed August 22, 2016

    5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). See Texas v. United Case 5:16-cv-00066-C Document 94 Filed 08/22/16 Page 17 of 29 PageID 1272 11 States, 809 F.3d 134, 186 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015) (finding regulation was “foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan” and that new agency program was “manifestly contrary to the statute” and therefore “properly enjoined”), aff’d by equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (Mem.) (June 23, 2016); Cent.

  6. State of Nevada et al v. United States Department of Labor et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Oral Argument and Expedited Consideration

    Filed October 31, 2016

    Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 221-22 (1974) (alterations omitted) (quoting McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 164 (1914)). The State Plaintiffs rely on the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding a nationwide injunction in Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015). But that holding grew out of the unique features of the policy under review: that the Court of Appeals found there was a “substantial likelihood that a geographically limited injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move among states.”

  7. State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

    MOTION for Injunction

    Filed July 6, 2016

    This Court has jurisdiction to enter an injunction against Defendants on a nationwide basis. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he Constitution vests the District Court with ‘the judicial power of the United States.’ That power is not limited to the district wherein the court sits but extends across the country.