State of Florida v. United States of America

USCA11 Case: 23-11644 Document: 24 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11528 ____________________ STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, SECRETARY, et al., USCA11 Case: 23-11644 Document: 24 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 2 of 9 2 Order of the Court 23-11528 Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees. ____________________ No. 23-11644 ____________________ STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 3:21-cv-01066-TKW-ZCB, 3:23-cv-09962-TKW-ZCB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11644 Document: 24 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 3 of 9 23-11528 Order of the Court 3 Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: The Department of Homeland Security1 (“DHS”) has filed a motion to stay two orders pending its appeal in this case: (1) the March 8, 2023, order that vacated DHS’s Policy on the Use of Pa- role Plus Alternatives to Detention to Decompress Border Loca- tions (the “Parole+ATD policy”); and (2) the May 16, 2023, order enjoining DHS’s Parole with Conditions in Limited Circumstances Prior to the Issuance of a Charging Document memorandum (the “PWC policy”). After careful consideration, we deny DHS’s mo- tion. 2 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a motion to stay pending appeal, we con- sider the “traditional” stay factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the 1 We refer to the Defendants in this case—the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Troy Miller, Ur M Jaddou, and Tae D John- son—collectively as DHS for ease of reference. 2 In denying this stay, we note that we write only for the parties’ benefit. “Be- cause an ‘order[ ] concerning [a] stay[ is] not a final adjudication of the merits of the appeal, the tentative and preliminary nature of a stay-panel opinion pre- cludes the opinion from having an effect outside that case.’” League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 32 F.4th 1363, 1369 n.1 (11th Cir. 2022) (some alterations in original) (quoting New Ga. Project v. Raffensperger, 976 F.3d 1278, 1280 n.1 (11th Cir. 2020)). USCA11 Case: 23-11644 Document: 24 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 4 of 9 4 Order of the Court 23-11528 merits; (2) whether the stay applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially in- jure the other persons interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425–26 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). Among these four factors, the first and second “are the most …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals