Supreme Court Previews
The previews are contributed by the Legal Information Institute, a nonprofit activity of Cornell Law School. The previews include an in-depth look at several cases plus executive summaries of other cases before the Supreme Court. The executive summaries include a link to the full text of the preview.
Arizona v. San Francisco (No. 20-1775) Oral argument: Feb. 23, 2022
Question as Framed for the Court by the Parties Whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.
Facts Under federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A), the government may deny noncitizens admission or adjustment to immigration status if they are “likely at any time to become public charge[s].” Government interpretations of the “public charge rule” have changed over time. Between 1999 and 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “public charge” in accordance with field guidance issued by the Clinton administration. The guidance defined “public charges” as individuals likely to receive “[c]ash assistance for income maintenance [or] institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” The federal government followed this nonbinding field guidance until August 2019, when the Trump Administration issued a final rule defining “public charge” after notice-and-comment rulemaking. The rule defined a “public charge” as someone who is “more likely than not at any time in the future to receive one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period.” The 2019 rule faced state challenges. Several states sought preliminary injunctions, alleging that they were injured when noncitizens, confused by the rule’s language, unnecessarily disenrolled from state public benefits. District courts in the Second,
Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits issued preliminary injunctions. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunctions that were issued in its circuit, allowing the 2019 rule to go into effect. While the Second and Seventh Circuits initially denied stays, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunctions issued within their circuits. Although the Supreme Court granted stays in the Second and Seventh Circuits, the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits continued litigation on the public charge rule and affirmed the issuance of their preliminary injunctions. In response, the federal government filed petitions for certiorari for the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit decisions. The petitions were pending before the Supreme Court when the Biden administration, which opposed the Trump administration’s 2019 rule, took office. In March 2021, DHS announced that it would no longer appeal court rulings enjoining the 2019 rule’s enforcement. The Seventh Circuit granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss Cook County v. Wolf, a public charge rule case on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. DHS subsequently announced that the Northern District of Illinois ruling, which had vacated the 2019 public charge rule, would be in effect nationwide and that the 1999 field guidance would control. The federal government filed joint stipulations to dismiss the public charge rule cases pending before the Supreme Court, and the cases were dismissed. The filing occurred hours after DHS announced that it would no longer defend the rule. In response to dismissals in the Seventh and Fourth Circuits, fourteen states collectively filed motions to intervene, arguing that because the United States announced
its intention to stop defending the rule and the cases were dismissed so quickly after the announcement, the states were unable to intervene. The Fourth and Seventh Circuits dismissed the states’ motions, and DHS issued a final rule removing the 2019 rule. The states’ effort to intervene in the Ninth Circuit public charge litigation was likewise denied. On June 18, 2021, the states of Arizona and twelve other states filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis INTERVENTION OF RIGHT Arizona argues that the States fulfilled all requirements necessary for intervention of right under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 24, Arizona explains, there are four requirements courts use to analyze a movant’s intervention of right. First, Arizona notes, courts determine if there has been a timely submission for the intervention application. Second, Arizona argues, courts analyze if the moving party has a significant interest regarding the transaction that is the subject of the legal action. Third, Arizona contends courts assess whether the action may impair the applicant’s ability to protect its interest. Fourth, Arizona notes, the court must determine if the “existing parties” in the suit adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” In arguing that the States have fulfilled the requirements needed for intervention of right, Arizona analyzes each of the four requirements. First, Arizona argues that the States’ intervention motion was timely. Arizona explains that without warning, on March 9, 2021, the United States declared that it would no longer defend the Public Charge Rule and the States’ interests in this case. Arizona contends that the States moved to intervene on March 10, 2021, in the Ninth Circuit, even though the Ninth Circuit had not issued its mandate yet. Arizona explains, the States did not delay in reacting to the United States’ decision. Moreover, Arizona notes that the idea that the States needed to intervene prior to when the United States stopped defending May/June 2022 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 37
