MCI Telecommunications Corp., 79 F.3d 3, 5 (2d Cir. * * * “An interlocutory appeal from a temporary stay no longer in effect, like an interlocutory appeal from a since-expired or vacated temporary restraining order, is the paradigm of a moot appeal.” Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. At the same time, the States are urging the district court to grant their pending motion for a preliminary injunction-the same injunction which they tell us has already been denied. The States maintain that the district court as a practical matter denied them a preliminary injunction, even without the stay in place, and thus we can grant them effective relief by “reversing” the district court’s de facto denial of their motion and entering a preliminary injunction ourselves. ![]() The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that though there never was appellate jurisdiction in this case, the case is also now moot because we cannot grant any effective relief as to an order that is no longer in effect. In light of the stay’s expiration, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing or motions addressing whether the States’ appeal was moot. The parties submitted post-stay briefing in the district court, and based on the docket activity below, the district court is currently considering the States’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction. By its own terms the district court’s stay order * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. After an expedited hearing before this court and while the case was under advisement, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Biden v. They also moved in this court for an injunction pending appeal which a motions panel carried with the case. The States sought to immediately appeal the stay, characterizing it as a practical denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. ![]() Once briefing was complete, the district court stayed the case until the Supreme Court ruled in Biden v. The States moved for a preliminary injunction, the case was consolidated with a similar one filed by the Texas General Land Office, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Specifically, the States alleged that DHS’s plan to conduct environmental reviews, engage in stakeholder consultation, and study how to minimize the use of eminent domain violated the terms of Congress’s appropriations statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Constitution. Per Curiam:* In October 2021, Missouri and Texas (collectively, the “States”) filed a lawsuit challenging an announcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of new spending priorities for certain funds Congress allocated to construct a barrier system along the nation’s southwest border. ![]() 7:21-CV-420 Before Higginbotham, Dennis, and Graves, Circuit Judges. ![]() 22-40110 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. Miller, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants-Appellees. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States of America United States of America Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security United States Department of Homeland Security Troy A. Biden, et al., Defendants, _ State of Missouri State of Texas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus Joseph R. Cayce Clerk The General Land Office of the State of Texas, et al., versus Plaintiffs, President Joseph R. Case: 22-40110 Document: 00516412817 Page: 1 Date Filed: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED JNo.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |