« Sponsored Post: The unauthorized practice of law for nonlawyers | Main | Rotations »

Saturday, September 01, 2018

Avoiding dueling universal injunctions

Judge Hanen of the Southern District of Texas* on Friday refused to preliminarily enjoin DACA, where such an injunction would have created a direct conflict with injunctions enjoining the Trump Administrations rescission of DACA. Although the court held that the states have standing and were likely to succeed on the merits (because DACA violates APA and the Take Care Clause), the balance of equities weighed against the injunction, as the injunction would undo the status quo by undoing rights and reliance interests that had attached to DACA recipients since 2012. So we again avoid the clash of injunctions and impossibly conflicting obligation only by a bit of restraint from one court.**

[*] Whose universal injunction in the DAPA litigation in 2015 was the starting point for the recent trend.

[**] Note the clash comes even if the injunction issued was particularized and non-universal. The existence of one universal injunction by definition collides with all future injunctions. A particularized injunction in this case would have forced the federal government to act inconsistent with the earlier universal injunctions prohibiting rescission.

In a separate order, Hanen certified the case for interlocutory review under § 1292(b), finding the validity of DACA is a novel and unique controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. This seems weird in two respects. First, while there is a controlling question of pure law within this order, the decision turned on the balancing of equities, an application issue that is not reviewable under § 1292(b). The court said that a Fifth Circuit declaration of DACA's validity would speed termination of the case, but it is not clear why, because that would not alter the purported balance of equities on which the district court denied relief, at least not at the preliminary injunction stage. I guess if the Fifth Circuit declares DACA invalid, the district court could summarily convert to a permanent injunction. But that assumes the Fifth Circuit takes on DACA directly and does not address the legal issue in context, saying only that DACA is likely invalid, but limiting the decision to the case's preliminary posture.

Second and in any event, certification was unnecessary to obtain review. A decision denying a preliminary injunction is immediately reviewable under § 1292(a)(1). Although the text of the statute only enumerates orders refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction as appealable, every circuit, including the Fifth, reads § (a)(1) to allow immediate review of the denial of the initial preliminary injunction. And § 1292(a)(1) appeals do not require leave of court and are not limited to controlling questions of law.

Update: Other conversations on the subject suggest that Hanen blew the procedure in another way. If he wanted to declare DACA invalid, tee-up the issue for appellate review, and avoid the chaos that would come with a preliminary injunction, he should have ordered the parties to file cross motions for summary judgment and issued a declaratory judgment. A D/J is a final judgment, appealable as such under § 1291. This stuff matters.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 1, 2018 at 08:18 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments

Thanks for that important post and ruling . Just worth to not , that not only issue of law had to be dealt here , but constitutional issue , that the court has deliberately avoided ( due to jurisprudence of federal courts , and lack of jurisprudence of federal court paradoxically ( and even of supreme court ) ) here I quote :

“ it is long standing precept , steeped in the traditions of federal jurisprudence , that courts should avoid ruling on constitutional issues , when a matter can be resolved on non - constitutional grounds . ”

And more concerning the “Take care clause ” and the current case :

“ Second , the Take care clause could actually be the basis for arguing the DACA is both constitutionally permissible and constitutionally impermissible . ”

And finally concerning the lack of sufficient jurisprudence , here :

“ The number of cases that interpret the Take care clause are relatively few …. ”

As Such , in sum , the court concludes that :

“ This court has no desire to use a discussion of the legality of DACA as a vehicle for creating new , innovative separation - powers principles . ”

And finally :

“ This courts therefore defers judgment on the Take care clause until a full hearing on the merits or until the appropriate court on appeal instructs it do decide the issue . ”

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Sep 1, 2018 1:11:25 PM

Post a comment