Texas ICE Priorities Ruling
Texas ICE Priorities Ruling
ENTERED
August 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
“No matter how successful Congress might be in crafting a set of immigration laws
that would—in theory—lead to the most long-term benefits to the American people, such
benefits will not actually occur if those laws cannot be enforced.” S. Rep. No. 104-249, at
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 160
3 (1996). That observation comes from a Senate Judiciary Committee Report addressing
the problem of alien criminality in the United States. Similarly, the Supreme Court has
stated “deportable criminal aliens who remain[] in the United States often commit[] more
crimes before being removed.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 518, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 1715, 155
L.Ed.2d 724 (2003) (citing Hearing on H.R. 3333 before the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong.,
1st Sess., 54, 52 (1989)). These observations, among others, led to the wholesale reform of
Now, over two decades later, the States of Texas and Louisiana (the “States”) seek
to have the Executive Branch (the “Government”)1 adhere to two federal immigration
statutes passed during that wholesale reform. The States want the Government to
comply with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), which provide that the Government
“shall” detain certain aliens when they are released from custody or during their removal
period, respectively.2 More specifically, the States move for a preliminary injunction to
prohibit the Government from implementing two recent immigration memoranda which
allegedly instruct Executive Branch officials to violate these laws.3 (Dkt. No. 18).
1 The term “Government” used throughout this Memorandum Opinion and Order refers
to the United States, the agencies, and the individuals sued in their official capacity.
2 Under Section 1226(c), “the Attorney General shall take into custody” certain aliens who
have either committed specified offenses or who are otherwise deemed deportable “when the
alien is released” from custody. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (emphasis added). Likewise, Section 1231(a)(2)
provides, “the Attorney General shall detain the alien” “during [the alien’s] removal period.” 8
U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (emphasis added).
3 The States also seek an injunction compelling the Government to comply with the
detention mandates in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 18).
2
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 160
These immigration memoranda, issued on January 20 and February 18, 2021 (the
(Dkt. No. 1-1); (Dkt. No. 1-2). The States point out that the priority categories enumerated
offenses, aliens convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, and aliens subject to a final order
of removal. The States argue that federal law requires the Government to take custody
of aliens falling within these overlooked categories, and the Memoranda are grinding
argues that the Executive Branch is simply acting within its discretion.
immigration law. But more fundamentally, the claims made in this case implicate the
separation-of-powers framework set forth in our Nation’s Constitution. Put simply, the
Government has instructed federal officials that “shall detain” certain aliens means “may
detain” when it unambiguously mean must detain. Thus, the Court inquires whether the
Executive Branch may direct officials to enforce a law enacted by Congress in a way that
is contrary to the plain language of the law. That inquiry yields a clear answer: it may
not. The Executive Branch may not instruct its officers to enforce a statute in a manner
contrary to the law itself. Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 327, 134 S.Ct. 2427,
2446, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014) (“Under our system of government, Congress makes laws
and the President, acting at times through agencies . . . , faithfully executes them. The
power of executing the laws [however] . . . does not include a power to revise clear
3
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 160
statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3)
(cleaned up)).
Having considered the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
finds the States have satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction.
I. BACKGROUND
At first glance, the background facts of this case are straightforward. The
the States claim violate two immigration laws. But upon closer examination, the actions
of the Government and the claims by the States are strikingly complex. Congress did not
design our Nation’s immigration laws on a whim. Therefore, to place this case in its
proper context and facilitate understanding of the function of Sections 1226(c) and
1231(a)(2), the Court begins by briefly detailing some of the history behind those statutes.5
4 In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court does not address the States’
likelihood of success on claims that the Memoranda are unlawful because they violate: (1) the
Agreements between Texas and Louisiana and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”);
and (2) the Constitution’s requirement that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 122–31). In withholding a ruling on these claims, the Court is
mindful that to succeed on their Motion, the States need only demonstrate a substantial likelihood
of success on “at least one” claim, which they have. See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d
591, 672 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court,
____ U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (mem.). Moreover, given the significance
of the substantial interests at stake in this case, the Court finds it to be in the interest of justice to
rule after all Parties have an opportunity to make a complete presentation on the merits of these
claims. See id. at 677. Similarly, the Court defers ruling on the States’ request for an injunction to
compel agency action unlawfully withheld pursuant to Section 706(1) of the Administrative
Procedure Act. See footnote 61; see also (Dkt. No. 1 at 28); (Dkt. No. 18 at 26).
5 In outlining the extensive background and history involved in this case, the factual
statements made herein (except where the Court is discussing a factual dispute) should be
(continue)
4
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 160
The United States has long welcomed and benefited from immigration.6 The
Nation has, however, borne costs due to illegal immigration and the criminal conduct of
illegal aliens. See Juliet Stumpf, The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign
Power, 56 Am. U. L. Rev. 367, 380–81 (2006). Congress in the 1990s was not blind to those
United States have been, and continue to be, predominantly hard working and law
among those here illegally.” S. Rep. No. 104-48, at 7 (1995). Indeed, Congress directly
linked illegal immigration with crime. The same legislative report provides:
The fact that many criminal aliens have entered the U.S.
illegally helps explain why so many aliens are involved in
crime[.] [T]heir illegal situation conveys an “outlaw” status,
often leading them into the shadowy realms of criminal
lifestyles. The point was made succinctly in Congressional
testimony by a former Commissioner of the INS, “[t]hose
entering the United States illegally have no legitimate
sponsors and are prohibited from holding jobs. Thus,
criminal conduct may be the only way to survive.”
Id. at 5.
Yet throughout much of its history, the United States had neither the means nor
the ability to curb illegal immigration or alien criminality. Indeed, “[f]or much of this
considered as findings of fact regardless of any heading or lack thereof. Similarly, the legal
conclusions, except where the Court discusses the various competing legal theories and positions,
should be taken as conclusions of law regardless of any label or lack thereof.
6 See generally John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants (1958); Andrea Barton, Sitting on
Ellis Island: The Fate of Disparate Immigration Policies in the Wake of the Guantanamo Bay Cases, 23
Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 233, 237 (2009).
5
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 160
country’s history there has been no comprehensive body of immigration law and no laws
at all addressing criminal aliens.” Id. at 10. Despite the enactment of the Immigration
and Nationality Act in 1952—and numerous immigration bills signed into law in the
12. Prior to the 1990s, “no major immigration legislation ha[d] focused exclusively on the
problem of criminal aliens.” Id. And although there were attempts to solve the problem
Id. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the time leading up to the enactment of Sections
1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) has been regarded by the Supreme Court as a time of “wholesale
failure by [the Executive Branch] to deal with increasing rates of criminal activity by
aliens.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 518, 123 S.Ct. at 1714 (citations omitted); see also Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 698, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2503, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The Executive
Branch’s failures at that time led to costs and consequences borne by the states, the
citizens of this country, and its legal immigrants. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 518–21, 123 S.Ct.
of criminal aliens. Following numerous reports about the high rate of abscondment and
recidivism among criminal aliens and the corresponding costs and negative effects,
“Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1226, requiring the Attorney General to detain a subset of
6
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 160
The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who—
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) (emphases added) (footnote added). And to buttress this detention
circumstances under which the Attorney General could release a detained illegal alien.
7 The text of the statute says “sentence;” however, the Court notes it should probably be
“sentenced.”
7
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 160
Congress’s efforts to protect the states, citizens, and legal immigrants from
criminal illegal aliens through the INA during the 1990s were not confined to Section
1226(c). Through other statutes, too, “Congress explicitly expanded the group of aliens
subject to mandatory detention.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 698, 121 S.Ct. at 2503 (citing
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 439(c), 110 Stat. 1277; Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Div. C, §§ 303, 305, 110
Stat. 3009–585, 3009–598 to 3009–599; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)). That
discretion regarding the detention of illegal aliens who have been ordered removed:
In view of the historical context and text of Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
Congress designed these two provisions to curtail the effects of illegal immigration and
the concomitant concerns of alien criminality. But, as the Senate Judiciary Committee
Report mentioned earlier admits, these statutory policies are futile if the “laws cannot be
8
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 160
B. DETENTIONS IN PRACTICE
the immigration removal process. ____ F. Supp. 3d ____, ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *4–9
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2021) (hereinafter “Texas I”). That discussion touched upon parts of
the detention process for aliens subject to removal proceedings, id. at *5, and aliens subject
to final orders of removal, id. at *8–9. Given the specific focus on detentions in this Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, it is appropriate to more fully discuss the detention process
To start, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, created a uniform procedure for deporting aliens
or denying them entry into the United States. The detention and removal process under
Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“240 proceedings”) commences
when DHS files a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) against an alien or noncitizen—who are
N. Dec. 462, 465 (2018); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14; Jennifer Williams, The Potential Implications
of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Pereira v. Sessions on Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry Under
8 U.S.C. § 1326, 67 DOJ J. Fed. L. & Prac. 141 (2019); see also (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. Nos. 82 at 12,
82-1 at 5, 83 at 14). Federal law then gives the Attorney General—and immigration judges
9
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 160
For criminal aliens, however, the start of the process is a bit different. Such aliens
are taken into custody by officers within the Executive Branch (i.e., Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents) in generally three ways: an ICE arrest; in execution
of detainers after a local police stop, see 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a) (2011); or after completion of
incarceration for a prior criminal conviction, see 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(c) (2016). See Gerard
Savaresse, When Is When?: 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and the Requirements of Mandatory Detention,
82 Fordham L. Rev. 285, 302 (2013). Of the three, immigration detainers are particularly
important:
10
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 160
Christopher N. Lasch, Enforcing the Limits of the Executive’s Authority to Issue Immigration
Detainers, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 164, 165 (2008) (footnote added) (citations omitted).9
In the past, ICE and DHS have been known to “screen” state prison and local jail
populations for criminal aliens who may be subject to Section 1226(c). Id. at 177 (citing
Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Mar. 28, 2008), not available online (Aug.
2, 2021)). This screening takes place, at least in some circumstances, without cooperation
from state and local authorities. See, e.g., State v. Reyes-Armenta, No. M2004-00419-CCA-
R3-CD, 2004 WL 2804898, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (“The codefendants were then
taken to the Sumner County Jail for processing. The officers had made no attempt to
officer, happened to be at the Sumner County jail and issued detainers on the
Once the alien is in mandatory custody pursuant to Section 1226(c), an NTA may
9 The importance of detainers aside, note that “[t]here are certainly other mechanisms
available to assist in implementing the federal apprehension of criminal aliens.” Id. at 175. For
instance, written agreements between the Executive Branch and states and local governments
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) may permit state and local law enforcement “to perform a function
of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in
the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention
centers).” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). In another example, the Executive Branch may also enter an “inter-
governmental service agreement” with local and state jails to authorize such detention centers to
house prisoners on behalf of DHS. Lasch, supra, at 175.
11
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 160
Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings, 18 Mich. J. Race & L. 63, 83 (2012).
Determination (“Form I-286”) may also be issued. Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 231.1(g)(1) (2011)).
The Form I-286 explains an ICE officer’s determination that an alien is subject to
mandatory detention because the alien falls within certain categories of Section 1226(c).
Id. For such aliens, “the NTA’s removal charge will commonly be the [Form I-286] charge
While in detention, the criminal alien is entitled to a “Joseph hearing.” Id. at 63, 85–
86; see Matter of Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999). The hearing is the detainee’s only
chance to challenge the mandatory nature of his or her detention. Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec.
at 800; Noferi, supra, at 85–86; Savaresse, supra, at 303. The point of the Joseph hearing is
included” within a mandatory detention category; that is, the categories enumerated in
Section 1226(c). See Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 800; Savaresse, supra, at 303. If the detainee
prevails, he or she is entitled to a bond determination. See Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 808–
09.
The detention process is similar for aliens with final orders of removal, i.e., those
who exhausted the removal proceedings and were found to be deportable. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(2). Criminal aliens who were initially detained under Section 1226(c) must
remain in ICE custody as their removals are processed. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(2) and
1231(a)(2). As for the aliens with final orders of removal who are not currently in ICE
12
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 160
custody, ICE sends a “Bag-and-Baggage” letter requiring the aliens to report to an ICE
facility for detention and deportation. Qian Gao v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 173, 175 (2d Cir.
2007); Bermudes-Cardenas v. Gonzales, 184 F. App’x 406, 407 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
An alien who fails to report is classified by ICE and the circuit courts as a “fugitive.” See,
e.g., Giri v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 833, 834–36 (5th Cir. 2007). Once an alien is in custody, ICE
takes the lead in coordinating their removal from the country. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp.
More than two decades after Congress changed the way this country approached
the issues of illegal immigration and alien criminality, the current Administration set
forth its views advocating a different approach from its predecessor. See Revision of Civil
Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities, Exec. Order No. 13,993, 86 Fed. Reg.
7051 (Jan. 20, 2021) (“[The current] Administration will reset the policies and practices for
enforcing civil immigration laws to align enforcement with [certain] values and
Once the current Administration assumed power on January 20, 2021, it wasted
no time issuing its first memorandum on civil immigration enforcement (the “January 20
Memorandum”). (Dkt. No. 1-1). The January 20 Memorandum, signed by Acting DHS
immigration laws, noting the United States “faces significant operational challenges at
13
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 160
the southwest border as it is confronting the most serious global public health crisis in a
century.” (Id. at 2). The January 20 Memorandum goes on to say, “in light of those unique
ensure safe, legal and orderly processing, to rebuild fair and effective asylum procedures
that respect human rights and due process, to adopt appropriate public health guidelines
and protocols, and to prioritize responding to threats to national security, public safety,
and border security.” (Id.) In Section A, the January 20 Memorandum calls for a
enforcement priorities [that] shall go into effect on February 1, 2021 and remain in effect
wide review. (Id. at 3–4). Pending completion of the Department-wide review, the
14
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 160
(Id. at 3). The January 20 Memorandum then qualifies its prioritization scheme by stating,
“[w]hile resources should be allocated to the priorities enumerated above, nothing in this
United States who are not identified as priorities herein.” (Id. at 4).
Memorandum directs “an immediate pause on removals of any noncitizen with a final
order of removal . . . for 100 days[.]” (Id. at 4). The January 20 Memorandum justifies
this pause by pointing to DHS’s “limited resources,” which it claims “must be prioritized
to . . . provide sufficient staff and resources to enhance border security and conduct
immigration and asylum processing at the southwest border fairly and efficiently” and
10 The January 20 Memorandum excludes from the 100-day pause any alien with a final
removal order who:
1) According to a written finding by the Director of ICE, has engaged in or is
suspected of terrorism or espionage, or otherwise poses a danger to the
national security of the United States; or
2) Was not physically present in the United States before November 1, 2020;
or
3) Has voluntarily agreed to waive any rights to remain in the United States,
provided that he or she has been made fully aware of the consequences of
waiver and has been given a meaningful opportunity to access counsel prior
to signing the waiver; or
4) For whom the Acting Director of ICE, following consultation with the
General Counsel, makes an individualized determination that removal is
required by law.
(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4–5) (footnote omitted).
15
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 160
to “comply with COVID-19 protocols to protect the health and safety of DHS personnel
and those members of the public with whom DHS personnel interact.” (Id.). Further, the
January 20 Memorandum states, the pause is necessary for DHS to “ensure that [its]
temporary restraining order, Texas v. United States, ____ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2021 WL 247877
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021), and again on February 23 with a preliminary injunction, Texas I,
____ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2021 WL 2096669. Specifically, this Court enjoined Section C of
the January 20 Memorandum, which paused removals of aliens with a final order of
removal for 100 days. Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *52. In doing
so, this Court explicitly left intact Section B of the January 20 Memorandum, which
On February 18, 2021, five days before the preliminary injunction was signed in
Texas I, ICE Acting Director Tae D. Johnson issued the February 18 Memorandum to all
ICE employees. (Dkt. No. 1-2). The February 18 Memorandum became “effective[]
immediately” and controls to the extent it conflicts with the January 20 Memorandum.
11 The January 20 Memorandum provides that “the Acting Director of ICE shall issue
operational guidance on the implementation of these priorities.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4).
16
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 160
(Id. at 2–3).
Relevant to this case, the February 18 Memorandum lists three “criteria defining
cases that are presumed to be priorities.” (Id. at 5). The first priority category is national
security.
17
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 160
(Id.) (emphasis in original). And the final priority category is public safety.
explains, “[o]fficers and agents need not obtain preapproval for enforcement or removal
actions that meet the above criteria for presumed priority cases”—i.e., the three
actions that do not fall under the three enforcement priorities. (Id. at 7). But there are
certain exceptions. The February 18 Memorandum, for example, posits that there are
circumstances when “the demands of public safety will make it impracticable to obtain
preapproval for an at-large enforcement action.” (Id.). But this is “generally . . . limited
18
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 19 of 160
E. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The States filed this case on April 6, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1). In its six-count Complaint,
the States allege the January 20 and February 18 Memoranda are unlawful because they
violate:
4) the Agreement between the States and DHS (Count V);15 and
5) the Constitution’s requirement that the President “take Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed” (Count VI).
On April 27, 2021, the States filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction moving to
19
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 20 of 160
Memoranda. (Dkt. No. 18 at 43). The Government filed a Response in opposition, (Dkt.
No. 42), to which the States filed a Reply. (Dkt. No. 51). Several amicus briefs have also
been filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 25); (Dkt. No. 48);
Before addressing the merits, this Court must consider the threshold issues of
whether the States have standing to bring this action and whether the APA allows this
Court to review the Memoranda challenged by the States. The States contend they have
standing, and their claims are reviewable. (Dkt. No. 18 at 35–40). The Government
disagrees. (Dkt. No. 48 at 22–36). Based on the following, the Court finds the States have
A. STANDING
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “For a legal dispute to qualify as a genuine case
or controversy, at least one plaintiff must have standing to sue.” Dep’t of Com. v. New
York, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 139 S.Ct. 2551, 2565, 204 L.Ed.2d 978 (2019). A plaintiff has
standing to sue only where it satisfactorily shows it “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that
is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 856, ____, 136
S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–
61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231,
110 S.Ct. 596, 608, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990)); see also Barber v. Bryant, 860 F.3d 345, 352 (5th
20
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 21 of 160
Cir. 2017). In short, injury, traceability, and redressability comprise the “irreducible
constitutional minimum” of standing. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (quoting
Under certain circumstances, states like Texas and Louisiana are not “normal
litigants.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 1454, 167 L.Ed.2d 248
right which affected the state’s “quasi-sovereign” interests, that state is afforded “special
solicitude” in its quest to establish standing. Id. at 520–21, 127 S.Ct. at 1454–55; Texas v.
United States, 809 F.3d 134, 151–55 (5th Cir. 2015) , aff’d by an equally divided court, ____ U.S.
____, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (mem.) (hereinafter “Texas DAPA”).
Specifically, a state armed with special solicitude can more easily satisfy the traceability
and redressability elements of the traditional standing inquiry. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at
Here, the States assert they have standing under the traditional inquiry and
because they are owed special solicitude. (Dkt. No. 18 at 35–37). The Government
counters that the States fail all three prongs of the traditional inquiry, and they are not
entitled to special solicitude because they do not assert a proper quasi-sovereign interest.
(Dkt. No. 42 at 22–25 & n.5). Based on the following, the Court finds the States have
satisfied the traditional inquiry and, regardless, are owed special solicitude which would
21
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 22 of 160
1. Injury in Fact
The States’ first task is to establish an injury in fact. A plaintiff satisfies that burden
where it shows it suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete,”
U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. at 2136). An alleged
injury is sufficiently concrete if it is “de facto,” meaning it “actually exist[s]” and is not
Id. (alteration added) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1, 112 S.Ct. at 2136 n.1). And lastly,
“continuing, present adverse effects” or demonstrates he “will soon expose himself to the
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 & n.2, 112 S.Ct. at 2138 & n.2 (emphases in original) (citations
omitted).
The States assert the Memoranda will injure two basic interests: their financial
interests and their interest as parens patriae in protecting their citizens from criminal
aliens. (Dkt. No. 35–37). As it pertains to their financial interests, the States claim the
Memoranda will require them to spend more on detention facilities and several public
benefits and services. (Id. at 35–36). Regarding the States’ interest as parens patriae, the
States allege the Memoranda will result in an increase in crime from aliens within their
borders, thus harming their citizenries’ physical and economic well-being. (Id. at 37).
22
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 23 of 160
The Government does not seriously refute the Memoranda will result in “a drop”
in immigration enforcement actions. (Dkt. No. 42 at 23). Nor could it. For example,
Texas has put forth undisputed evidence that, during just the first two months following
the issuance of the January 20 Memorandum, ICE rescinded detainers for 68 aliens
housed within Texas’s detention facilities. (Dkt. No. 19-3 at 5). That’s 68 more rescinded
detainers than during the same period the year prior. (Id. at 3, 8) (showing no detainers
were dropped from January 20, 2020, to March 20, 2020). Of note, the list includes aliens
who were convicted of possessing over fifty pounds of a narcotic, manufacturing over
400 grams of methamphetamine, theft, intoxication assault with a vehicle, and the sexual
assault of a child. (Id. at 6–7). And at least six had received a final order of removal. (Id.
at 5). Importantly, current ICE officials “attribute” the Government’s sharp decline in
detentions of criminal aliens, the Government counters that any drop in detentions is of
16 This statement comes directly from the Chief of Staff of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. (Dkt. No. 46 at 2). It is unclear whether the “ICE officials” quoted by the Chief
of Staff made this statement in a capacity excluding the statement from the rule against hearsay.
See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). But even if hearsay, this Court may rely on the statement at the
preliminary injunction phase. See Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. FDIC, 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir.
1993) (“[A]t the preliminary injunction stage, the procedures in the district court are less formal,
and the district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay
evidence.”). The Government has made no showing that this testimony is otherwise unreliable,
and the Court finds none itself. Rather, the sworn affidavit from the Chief of Staff under penalty
of perjury possesses sufficient indicia of reliability as to the statement of the ICE officials. The
Court therefore accepts as fact, at the preliminary injunction phase, the testimony of the Chief of
Staff regarding the statement of current ICE officials.
23
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 24 of 160
no real consequence to the States. It argues, even if the Memoranda cause detentions to
decline, the States’ theories of injury rely on a “speculative chain of events involving
independent actions by third parties.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 23). Specifically, the Government
asserts the States would incur increased financial expenses and exposure to crime only if
two conditions are satisfied: (1) the aliens who would have otherwise been detained
commit crimes or choose to use public benefits and services; and (2) those aliens do so at
a higher rate than the noncitizens who are removed as a result of the Memoranda. (Id. at
23–24).
The Government’s concern over the causal chain of events involving third-party
action is noteworthy but out-of-turn. These concerns pertain to the “fairly traceable”
prong of the traditional standing inquiry. See Dep’t of Com., ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at
2565–66 (finding “traceability . . . satisfied” where the plaintiffs’ theory “relies . . . on the
predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties”); Texas DAPA,
809 F.3d at 156–60 (finding a plaintiff–state’s financial injury was “fairly traceable” to the
independent conduct of third-party aliens); see also California v. Texas, ____ U.S. ____, ____,
141 S.Ct. 2104, 2116–17 (2021) (finding “an individual’s decision to enroll [in] Medicaid”
was not “fairly traceable” to the Affordable Care Act’s “minimum essential coverage
causation concerns will need to be addressed, the Court reserves its analysis on those
issues for discussion of the traceability of the States’ alleged injuries. For now, the Court
inquires whether the States have presented a cognizable injury to their financial interests
or interests as parens patriae. See also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 & n.2, 112 S.Ct. at 2138 & n.2
24
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 25 of 160
(explaining “imminence” is shown where a plaintiff “will soon expose himself to the
(emphases in original) (citations omitted)); cf. Dep’t of Com., ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at
2565 (sidestepping the reliance of the plaintiff-states’ “future” injuries upon independent
decisions of third-party aliens to underreport in a census and holding the injuries were
noncitizen households are undercounted by as little as 2%[,] . . . they will lose out on
federal funds that are distributed on the basis of state population” (emphasis added)).
They have.
a. Financial Injuries
Between the States, Texas marshals the lion’s share of state-specific evidence
concerning injury. Compare (Dkt. Nos. 19-5–19-9) with (Dkt. No. 19-12). The Court
therefore focuses its attention on Texas’s evidence. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 155
(same). Texas’s alleged financial injury affects three categories of its public fisc: Texas’s
detention system, public education services, and healthcare-related costs. (Dkt. No. 18 at
35–36). Texas asserts that in these three categories it will incur unanticipated costs due
to the “rushed implementation” of the Memoranda which “deprived [it] of the ability to
To begin, Texas has alleged injury to a legally protected interest. See Spokeo, 578
U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1548. Texas complains it will incur additional costs to its public
fisc because of an unlawful and sudden shift in federal immigration policy. (Dkt. No. 18
at 35). Theories of injury to state or local financial interests predicated on the actions of
25
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 26 of 160
the federal government are not novel. See, e.g., Clinton v. City of N.Y., 524 U.S. 417, 430–
31, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 2099, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) (finding sufficient for standing purposes
a local government’s claim to suffering injury to its “borrowing power, financial strength,
and fiscal planning”); Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 152–53 (finding sufficient for standing
purposes several states’ claims to suffering injury to their public fiscs); see also Sch. Dist.
of City of Pontiac v. Sec’y of the U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 261–62 (6th Cir. 2009). And
enforcement, where states have “an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic
effects of sudden shifts in population.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2400,
72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (emphasis added); see id. at n.23 (explaining, because the
Constitution deprives states of any “direct interest in controlling entry into this country,
. . . unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the
State’s ability to provide some important service”); Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 152–54; see
also Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 397, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2500, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012)
DHS v. Regents of the U. of Cal., ____ U.S. ____, ____, 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1913, 207 L.Ed.2d 353
(2020) (finding a sudden shift in the government’s immigration policy was arbitrary and
capricious in part because the government “failed to address whether there was
legitimate reliance” on the former immigration policy (quotation omitted)). In sum, the
financial injuries incurred by states from “sudden shifts” in their population due to
federal immigration policies are not nebulous. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 228, 102 S.Ct. at 2400.
Rather, they are among the “serious and well recognized” vintage of legally protected
26
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 27 of 160
interests. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 521, 127 S.Ct. at 1455. By requesting equitable relief
from the impact of the Memoranda on its public fisc, then, Texas appropriately seeks
judicial shelter.
is sufficiently concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at ____,
136 S.Ct. at 1548. The Government does not contest that Texas’s alleged injury is
particularized to Texas, and the Court finds that it is. Texas can therefore establish an
injury in fact for its financial injury if it is both concrete and actual or imminent.
Texas asserts a financial injury in the form of added costs to its detention system.
Texas states the Memoranda will lead to an unanticipated rise in criminal activity from
aliens the federal government would otherwise detain. (Dkt. No. 18 at 15–16, 35–36). On
average, Texas spends $62.34 per day per inmate in its detention facilities. (Dkt. No. 19-
6 at 3–4). In 2018, Texas detained 8,951 criminal aliens for a total of 2,439,110 days, costing
$152,054,117.17 (Id.). If even one alien not detained due to the Memoranda recidivates,
Texas’s costs “will increase” in accordance with its current cost per inmate. (Id. at 4);
The Court finds Texas’s claimed injury from unanticipated detention costs is
sufficiently concrete and imminent. The harm is concrete because Texas incurs real
financial costs in detaining criminal aliens. And the harm is imminent because Texas
17 As the Court discusses infra, the federal government reimbursed Texas for a miniscule
fraction of its costs for detaining criminal aliens as part of a statutorily mandated program that
seeks to help states with the burden of incarcerating criminal aliens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A).
27
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 28 of 160
currently operates a detention system holding criminal aliens and plans to continue doing
so in the future.18
In addition to its financial injury, the States assert they have been injured in their
interests as parens patriae. (Dkt. No. 18 at 37). The Government counters that the States
are precluded from bringing a parens patriae action against the federal government. (Dkt.
No. 42 at 24 & n.5). Based on the following, the Court concludes the States properly lay
“Parens patriae means literally ‘parent of the country.’” Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
v. Puerto Rico, ex rel., Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 600, 102 S.Ct. 3260, 3265, 73 L.Ed.2d 995 (1982)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed. 1979)). The concept derives from the
English constitutional system. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251, 257, 92 S.Ct.
885, 888, 31 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). As that system developed, the Crown retained certain
“duties and powers” referred to as the “royal prerogative.” Id. (citation omitted). For
example, as the “father of the country,” the King served as the guardian of persons with
legal disabilities. Id. (internal quotations omitted). When the United States achieved
independence, “the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States.”
Wheeler v. Smith, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 55, 78, 13 L.Ed. 44 (1850). That is, “[t]he State, as a
sovereign,” became “the parens patriae.” Id. Like the King before them, the states were
18 Because the States have put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate a concrete and
imminent injury regarding Texas’s detention costs and parens patriae, see infra II.A.1., the Court
need not address the States’ alleged financial injuries arising from unanticipated education and
healthcare-related expenses.
28
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 29 of 160
now responsible for acting “in the interests of humanity” and “for the prevention of
injury to those who cannot protect themselves.” Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 57, 10 S.Ct. 792, 808, 34 L.Ed. 478 (1890).
Once vested in the states, the scope of a parens patriae action under American law
“greatly expanded.” Hawaii, 405 U.S. at 257, 92 S.Ct. at 889. The first such expansion is
Louisiana sought through a parens patriae action to enjoin Texas from continuing a trade
embargo that was allegedly injuring Louisiana’s economy. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1,
3–4, 11–12, 20 S.Ct. 251, 251–52, 254, 44 L.Ed. 347 (1900). Texas’s lead health official had
cinched the spigot on all commerce flowing between the city of New Orleans and the
State of Texas “under the guise of a quarantine against yellow fever.” Id. at 11, 20 S.Ct.
at 254. A standing issue arose because Louisiana had simultaneously invoked the
between” the states as sovereigns, and asserted an interest as parens patriae, which had
traditionally been a tool for a state to vindicate “the grievances of particular individuals”
within its borders. Id. at 16, 20 S.Ct. at 256. To reconcile this seeming conflict, the Court
determined Louisiana had properly stated an interest as parens patriae in protecting “her
citizens at large” from economic harm due to Texas’s quarantine regulations. Id. at 19, 20
S.Ct. at 257. This interest, reasoned the Court, stemmed in part from the fact that
Louisiana, as a state, held no right under the Constitution to regulate “the freedom of
interstate commerce.” Id. Although the Supreme Court ultimately held Louisiana lacked
standing for other reasons, id. at 22–23, 20 S.Ct. at 258–59, the case is considered the first
29
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 30 of 160
to expand the notion of parens patriae to a state’s interest in protecting its citizens’ interests
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the concept of a parens patriae action to vindicate the rights
of a state’s citizens-at-large proved popular. See id. at 603, 102 S.Ct. at 3266–67 (listing
cases brought by various states during the early 20th century). And not long after
Louisiana v. Texas, Justice Holmes referred to a state’s interests in such broader matters as
“quasi-sovereign” interests. See Georgia v. Tenn. Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230, 237, 27 S.Ct. 618,
619, 51 L.Ed. 1038 (1907). The term stuck. See, e.g., North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S.
365, 374, 44 S.Ct. 138, 139, 68 L.Ed. 342 (1923); Georgia v. Pa. R. Co., 324 U.S. 439, 447, 450,
65 S.Ct. 716, 721, 722, 89 L.Ed. 1051 (1945). And before long, the doctrine evolved to the
point that the Supreme Court determined quasi-sovereign interests to be not simply a
branch of traditional parens patriae actions, but the sine qua non of parens patriae actions.
See Snapp, 458 U.S. at 602, 102 S.Ct. at 3266. (“[T]o have [parens patriae] standing, the State
But lending this workable term to the abstract concept of a state’s interest in its
citizenry did not resolve all questions regarding parens patriae standing. Namely, the
state’s injury is sufficiently “concrete” for purposes of Article III standing. Id. After all,
a quasi-sovereign interest itself is nothing more than a “judicial construct” that does “not
lend itself to a simple or exact definition.” Id. at 601, 102 S.Ct. at 3265. On its surface, the
term clearly was crafted to help distinguish from a state’s “sovereign interests,
proprietary interests, or private interests.” Id. at 602, 102 S.Ct. at 3266. And an inch
30
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 31 of 160
deeper, the term represented “a set of interests that the State has in the well-being of its
populace.” Id. But those broad contours alone, absent further granularity, “risk[ed] being
Recognizing this concreteness issue, the Supreme Court in Alfred L. Snapp & Son
took it upon itself to hammer out, as best it could, the notion of a quasi-sovereign interest.
458 U.S. 592, 102 S.Ct. 3260. While at once conceding that “the articulation of such
physical and economic—of its residents in general. Second, a state has a quasi-sovereign
interest in not being discriminatorily denied its rightful status within the federal system.”
Id. at 607, 102 S.Ct. at 3269. Regarding the first category, the Supreme Court further
health and welfare of its citizens suffices to give the state standing to sue as parens patriae
is whether the injury is one that the state, if it could, would likely attempt to address
through its sovereign lawmaking powers.” Id. And regarding the latter, the Supreme
interests that a State will obviously wish to have accrue to its residents.” Id.
Building on this rubric, the Fifth Circuit has concluded that a state’s claim to a
“quasi-sovereign” interest for standing purposes is sufficient when the state seeks to
“protect[] its citizens from criminal activity.” Castillo v. Cameron County, 238 F.3d 339, 351
31
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 32 of 160
(5th Cir. 2001) (citing Snapp, 458 U.S. at 602, 102 S.Ct. at 3260). In Castillo, Texas sought
to overturn a federal district court’s injunction which permitted a local County Sheriff to
refuse to incarcerate alleged parole violators to reduce the county’s jail population. 238
F.3d at 343–47. To prove standing in that circumstance, Texas was required to show,
among other things, it had a “personal stake” in the outcome. Id. at 350–51. The panel
held that Texas satisfied this showing in part by alleging a valid quasi-sovereign interest
in protecting its citizens from criminal activity. Id. at 351. As a result of the injunction,
the panel explained, “parole violators who should be incarcerated remain[ed] free,
potentially increasing the level of criminal activity.” Id. Although fully aware that “the
concept of quasi-sovereign standing ‘risks being too vague to survive the standing
requirements of Article III,’” the panel found that Texas’s interest in protecting its citizens
from increased criminal activity “[fell] within the category of ‘a quasi-sovereign interest
in the health and well–being—both physical and economic—of its residents in general.’”
Bearing these principles in mind, the Court now turns to the States’ basis for parens
patriae standing in this case. The States assert a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting
their citizens’ physical and economic well-being “from crime caused by [the
“criminal activity” in general, Castillo resolves that the States here possess a quasi-
are perhaps stronger than the circumstances presented in Castillo. Whereas in Castillo the
32
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 33 of 160
State of Texas sought to protect its citizens from criminal activity in an area of law over
which the State retained extensive authority—the procedure for detaining alleged parole
violators—here the States retain no authority over the detention of criminal aliens upon
their release from state prison and during the pendency of their removal proceedings.
That is, the injury to the States’ quasi-sovereign interest in protecting their citizens from
criminal aliens is especially severe here because the States’ hands are tied, in effect, when
it comes to federal immigration policy. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (conferring upon
Congress the Power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”); Arizona, 567 U.S.
at 394–95, 132 S.Ct. at 2498 (holding that a state law “authorizing state officers to decide
whether an alien should be detained for being removable . . . violates the principle that
the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government” (citations
omitted)).
By seeking relief for an injury to their populace from which they have no
constitutional mode of recourse, the States align themselves with the rationale employed
by the Supreme Court to support the first expansion of parens patriae standing in Louisiana
commerce” that was “not committed” to it by the Constitution, here the States seek
protection from an effect of a federal immigration policy that the States possess no
constitutional authority to change.19 Louisiana, 176 U.S. at 19, 20 S.Ct. at 257; see also Snapp,
19 The fact that an expansion of parens patriae to citizens-at-large in Louisiana v. Texas was
determined in a case involving the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction does not restrict the
scope of quasi-sovereign interests in non-original jurisdiction cases. If anything, the opposite is
(continue)
33
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 34 of 160
458 U.S. at 608, 102 S.Ct. at 3269. Accordingly, the Court holds that the States possess a
The Government contends that the States nevertheless are barred from bringing a
parens patriae action “against the federal government.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 24). For this
proposition the Government relies exclusively upon Massachusetts v. Mellon, where the
Supreme Court denied parens patriae standing to a state suing the federal government to
protect its citizens from the “operation of” a federal statute called the Maternity Act. 262
U.S. 447, 479, 485–86, 43 S.Ct. 597, 598, 600, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923). A critical feature of the
Supreme Court’s rationale was that the state had not identified any “rights of the state
falling within the scope of the judicial power,” such as “quasi sovereign rights.” Id. at
485, 43 S.Ct. at 600. These twin aspects of Mellon—the challenge to the “operation of
federal statutes” and the state’s lack of an identifiable “right”— were later acknowledged
by the Supreme Court as the defining characteristics of its bar on parens patriae actions
vis-à-vis the federal government. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 520 n.17, 127 S.Ct. at 1455
n.17; Georgia, 324 U.S. at 447, 65 S.Ct. at 721 (holding that Georgia could bring a parens
patriae action to protect a quasi-sovereign interest because, unlike Mellon, it did not seek
“to protect her citizens from the operation of federal statutes” and it possessed “rights . . .
based on federal [anti-trust] laws” (emphasis added)). And a long train of federal courts
true. See Snapp, 458 U.S. at 603 n.12, 102 S.Ct. at 3267 n.12; id. at 611–12, 102 S.Ct. at 3270–71
(Brennan, J., concurring) (explaining on constitutional grounds that the Court might be more
“restrictive” as to the types of interests a state can assert in a parens patriae action when the Court’s
original jurisdiction is invoked as compared to typical federal suits).
34
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 35 of 160
have applied or mirrored the Supreme Court’s careful circumscription of Mellon to hold
that a state may bring a parens patriae action against the federal government where it does
not challenge the operation of a federal statute and it asserts a proper right. See, e.g., Texas
v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 3d 662, 696–98 (S.D. Tex. 2018); See Texas v. United States, 86
F. Supp. 3d 591, 625–28 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally
divided court, ____ U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016) (mem.); New York v.
Sebelius, No. 1:07-cv-1003, 2009 WL 1834599, at *12–13 (N.D.N.Y. June 22, 2009); Puerto
Rico Pub. Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 59 F. Supp. 2d 310, 326 (D.P.R.
1999); Kansas v. United States, 748 F. Supp. 797, 802 (D. Kan. 1990); City of New York v.
Heckler, 578 F. Supp. 1109, 1122–25 (E.D.N.Y. 1984); Abrams v. Heckler, 582 F. Supp. 1155,
The parens patriae injury set forth by the States safely navigates this well-trodden
distinction from the Mellon rule. The States do not challenge the operation of any federal
statute. Rather, they primarily challenge the Executive Branch’s putative refusal to
enforce certain immigration statutes which, they claim, should benefit their citizenries.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 21–24). The States allege that the Executive Branch’s policy of non-
enforcement infringes upon rights they derive from the APA. (Id. at 21–27). Specifically,
the States claim that the federal government’s policy creating a categorical refusal to
asserting these federal statutory rights, the States have not presented this Court with
“abstract questions of political power.” Cf. Mellon, 262 U.S. at 485, 43 S.Ct. at 600. Rather,
35
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 36 of 160
the States have demonstrated concrete injuries to their quasi-sovereign interests as parens
patriae. See Castillo, 238 F.3d at 351; see also Snapp, 458 U.S. at 608, 102 S.Ct. at 3269;
Louisiana, 176 U.S. at 19, 20 S.Ct. at 257; see also Texas, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 697–98 (finding
the state had “demonstrated a concrete injury to its quasi-sovereign interest in the
economic well-being of its citizens” in a parens patriae action against the federal
government (quotation omitted)). The Court therefore concludes that the States have
2. Traceability
The States must next establish a “fairly traceable link” between their injuries and
the Government’s allegedly unlawful action. They can establish this link with “no more
than de facto causality.” Dep’t of Com., ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 2566 (quoting Block
v. Meese, 793 F.2d 1303, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Scalia, J.)). That is to say, a federal plaintiff
need not demonstrate that the defendant’s actions are “the very last step in the chain of
causation.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 169–70, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 1164, 137 L.Ed.2d 281
(1997); see also Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734–35, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 2769, 171
Both States’ injuries depend on the future behavior of criminal aliens whom the
Government would otherwise detain. Regarding Texas’s detention costs injury, the
States argue the Memoranda will cause a significant number of criminal aliens who
otherwise would have been detained by the federal government to be detained again or
longer in Texas. (Dkt. No. 18 at 16, 18, 35–37). Regarding the States’ parens patriae injury,
the States urge that the Memoranda will lead to a significant number of criminal aliens
36
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 37 of 160
who would otherwise have been detained by the federal government causing harm—
both physical and economic—to their respective citizenries. (Id. at 37). Thus, at their
core, both States’ injuries depend upon criminal aliens behaving unlawfully in the future.
The Government contends that whether the aliens who would have otherwise
been taken into custody will commit crimes is speculative. (Dkt. No. 42 at 23). The
Government further contends that, even if the States can make this showing, they must
also prove that those aliens would commit crimes at a higher rate than the aliens who are
Regarding the Government’s first concern, the Supreme Court has traditionally
denied standing wherever the traceable link between the government’s action and the
plaintiff’s injury depends in part on the future behavior of third parties. See Clapper v.
Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 413, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1150, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (“[W]e
have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork as to how
firm where, as here with the States’ asserted injuries, it is alleged that the third parties’
future behavior will be unlawful. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103
That said, the Supreme Court embraces standing theories dependent on third
instance, the Supreme Court traced a governmental action to aliens’ future unlawful
behavior where evidence established a likelihood that aliens have “historically” behaved
in a certain manner. ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 2566. This type of evidence, the
37
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 38 of 160
Supreme Court concluded, demonstrated that traceability was not “mere speculation,”
but rather, the product of a “predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of
third parties.” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, in Davis v. Federal Election Commission,
the Supreme Court traced a governmental action to the future behavior of the plaintiff’s
political opponent where evidence showed that “most candidates” had behaved in a
certain manner and there was “no indication” the opponent would do otherwise. 554
U.S. at 734–35, 128 S.Ct. at 2769; see also Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 156 (finding a traceable
link between DAPA and aliens’ likelihood of obtaining driver’s licenses where driving
was a “practical necessity” for residents of the state). From these cases, it becomes
action where the plaintiff demonstrates individuals similarly situated to the third party
Considering this principle, the link between the States’ alleged harm and the
demonstrates that the Memoranda are already causing a dramatic increase in the volume
of criminal aliens released into the public. The States further present evidence suggesting
that criminal aliens, as a group, have a strong propensity to recidivate. (Dkt. No. 18 at
15–16). Indeed, the States submit evidence from a Texas Sheriff’s Office showing that a
group of 209 recently held criminal alien inmates with detainers had a recidivism rate of
73.68%. (Dkt. No. 19-5 at 3). The States also submit a 2018 study from the United States
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics showing that state offenders generally
recidivate at 44% within the first year following release, 68% within the first three, 79%
38
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 39 of 160
within the first six, and 83% within the first nine. (Dkt. No. 19-20 at 1). And these weren’t
one-time recidivists. The same study shows, during the nine-year period following
release, there were on average five arrests per released prisoner. (Id.).
This foregoing evidence confirms what the Supreme Court and Congress have
long acknowledged: “deportable criminal aliens who remain[] in the United States often
commit[] more crimes before being removed.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 518, 123 S.Ct. at 1715
(citing Hearing on H.R. 3333 before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and
International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 54, 52
(1989)); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 713–14, 121 S.Ct. at 2511 (Kennedy, J., dissenting)
(warning of the “risk to the community posed by the mandatory release” of criminal
aliens when accounting for “statistical studies showing high recidivism rates for released
aliens”).
Congress and the Executive have long provided financial aid to states to ameliorate the
strain criminal aliens place on state detention facilities. Through the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (“SCAAP”), the federal government partially reimburses states for
costs associated with detaining criminal aliens.20 (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 2–4). For example, in
2018 the federal government through SCAAP reimbursed Texas $14,657,739 of the total
$152,054,117 Texas spent on detaining criminal aliens. (Id. at 4). Although amounting to
less than 10% of Texas’s actual costs in 2018, SCAAP payments demonstrate that the
20 Notably, the statutory basis for SCAAP resides near one of the detention statutes at issue
in this case, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(i).
39
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 40 of 160
federal government has long acknowledged that states like Texas incur financial harm as
In sum, the States present evidence of criminal alien and state felon recidivism
through a Texas Sheriff and the DOJ’s own dataset, Supreme Court precedent citing the
congressional record making similar findings as to criminal aliens, and the existence of
the SCAAP program. Considering this substantial evidence, the Court is not persuaded
that the link between the States’ injuries and criminal aliens being released is
“speculative” as the Government suggests. The Court finds that criminal aliens
“historically” recidivate. See Dep’t of Com., ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 2566.
Next, the Government asserts that the risk of criminal aliens committing further
crimes is insufficient for the States to trace their injuries to the Memoranda. (Dkt. No. 42
at 23). Rather, the Government hypothesizes that “it is possible” the Memoranda’s
reprioritization “will result in a net reduction in crimes.” (Id.). This argument fails in
three respects.
First, evidence already in the record demonstrates that the Government is not just
refusing to detain its newly deprioritized categories of criminal aliens, but even the
“prioritized” variety. For instance, in Texas alone, some of the 68 individuals whose
detainers were dropped were serving time for an “aggravated felony,” a supposedly
prioritized category. Compare (Dkt. No. 19-3 at 6–7) with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (defining
Second, the Government provides no support for its contention that its
enforcement of the prioritized categories of criminal aliens will exceed any decline in
40
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 41 of 160
the prioritized categories might displace a drop in the total number of detained aliens
resulting from the deprioritized categories, this “offset” would be irrelevant as a matter
of law. The “standing analysis is not an accounting exercise.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at
156 (internal quotation omitted). Absent a “tight[] nexus” between the alleged “benefits”
and the “costs” of the Memoranda, there can be no “offset.” Id. Here, other than what it
noted in the Memoranda, the Government makes no showing that the resources it
previously used for enforcement of the deprioritized categories are now being allocated
to boost enforcement of the prioritized categories. And the evidence put forward by the
categories.
The Court further notes that the number of aliens who would otherwise be
detained in the entire United States is relevant to estimating the impact of the Memoranda
on the States in this case. The Fifth Circuit made clear in Texas DAPA that injury to a state
can flow from the fact that aliens are “free to move among states.” 809 F.3d at 188.
Indeed, the States proffer evidence showing that “more than 50,000 noncitizens moved
into Texas from another U.S. State in 2019.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 42) (citing Dkt. No. 19-21); see
also (Dkt. No. 51 at 35) (citing Dkt. Nos. 19-21–19-23). Given the Fifth Circuit’s
41
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 42 of 160
acknowledgement of this interstate migration principle and the data provided by the
States, the prospect that criminal illegal aliens falling within the deprioritized categories
of the Memoranda who are not detained elsewhere in the Nation could move to the
Considering the foregoing, the Court holds that the States have established a
traceable link between their injuries and the challenged Memoranda. The Memoranda
are already leading to an increased volume of criminal aliens released into Texas who
otherwise should have been detained by the federal government. Criminal aliens and
therefore cause a traceable injury to the States’ financial and parens patriae interests.
3. Redressability
The States must next demonstrate that their requested relief would remedy their
harm. The “redressability” element of the standing to sue doctrine requires a plaintiff to
demonstrate “a substantial likelihood that the requested relief will remedy the alleged
injury in fact.” El Paso Cnty. v. Trump, 982 F.3d 332, 341 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The
The States request two forms of injunctive relief. First, they ask this Court to
restrain the Government from “enforcing and implementing the policies described” in
Section B of the January 20 Memorandum and the February 18 Memorandum. (Dkt. No.
18-1 at 2). This Court will refer to this requested relief as the “negative injunction.”
Second, the States ask this Court to order the Government to comply with “the mandatory
42
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 43 of 160
duty” to “take into custody” and “detain” aliens covered by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1) and
1226(c)(1) except as permitted by Section 1226(c)(2). (Id.). The Court will refer to this
requested relief as the “positive injunction.” The positive injunction relates directly to
the States’ Count I claim that the Government is “unlawfully withholding and
unreasonably delaying agency action” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). (Dkt. No. 1 at 23).
The States further seek to implement both the negative and positive injunctions
Assuming, as the Court must for purposes of standing, that the States are “correct
on the merits of [their] claims,” either form of requested relief is substantially likely to
remedy the States’ alleged injuries. Texas v. EEOC, 933 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2019).
compelling the federal government to take criminal aliens into custody and detain them
pursuant to the relevant statutes would relieve the States from harm they anticipate from
the criminal behavior of criminal aliens. Requiring an agency action, the withholding of
which is causing injury, will logically alleviate that injury. Notably, the Government
offers no clear argument to the contrary regarding the benefit of a positive injunction.
But even if the Court were to grant only the requested negative injunction, then,
too, the States are substantially likely to obtain reprieve. Namely, the federal government
would be required to act in conformance with the standards set by Congress in Sections
1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) as interpreted by this Court. The Government does not quibble
43
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 44 of 160
with the notion that, under Congress’s standards, the States’ injuries would be redressed.
Rather, the Government argues that, if the Memoranda are enjoined, the States are unable
to show that “the resulting prioritization scheme” will “result in a decrease in crime levels”
within the States’ boundaries. (Dkt. No. 42 at 25) (emphasis added). The Government’s
First, this argument suggests the Memoranda were issued in a vacuum in which
no prior policy concerning the detention of criminal aliens ever existed. Of course, such
the United States has “had policies guiding such exercise since as early as 1909.” (Dkt.
Second, the Court’s concern over redressability in an APA case such as this cuts
not to the executive-level policy which would be applied in the absence of the faulty one,
but rather, whether Congress’s express standards—both for the immigration laws
provide the States recourse. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 161. By nullifying the constraints
flowing from the Memoranda’s “prioritization,” this Court would require that agency to
return to or pursue a specific standard for exercising its discretion within the bounds set
by Congress. The States have supplied evidence demonstrating that in times past, such
an exercise of discretion led to significantly fewer criminal aliens who are not in custody
and roaming their streets. (Dkt. No. 19-3 at 5). The Government’s inability to refute this
evidence is telling. It suggests that conformance with the strictures set by Congress in
Sections 1226(c) or 1231(a)(2) as practiced prior to the issuance of the Memoranda would
44
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 45 of 160
result in a reduction of the volume of criminal aliens moving freely within the interior of
the States.
Accordingly, the Court finds that, regardless of which form it takes, the injunctions
sought by the States would redress their injuries flowing from the Memoranda. The
4. Special Solicitude
Even if the States could not satisfy the traditional standing inquiry, they are
entitled to special solicitude which also enables them to satisfy the standing requirement.
The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA determined that states are owed special
solicitude wherever they assert a congressionally bestowed procedural right and the
governmental action at issue affects the state’s quasi-sovereign interests. 549 U.S. at 519–
20, 127 S.Ct. at 1454–55. The Fifth Circuit has acknowledged that the holding in
Massachusetts applies to procedural claims under the APA. Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 152–
55. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit in Texas DAPA granted the state special solicitude where
The States are likewise owed special solicitude here. The States seek judicial
review of immigration policy memoranda which they allege constitute final agency
action, and they assert that the resulting policies cause injury to Texas’s public fisc
because its budget for detention facilities “has been set months or years in advance.”
(Dkt. No. 18 at 41). Additionally, and as discussed above, the States have shown they
45
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 46 of 160
activity of criminal aliens. The Government’s sole argument in opposition is that special
solicitude still requires an injury in fact. (Dkt. No. 42 at 24–25 n.7). But this argument
falls short because, as detailed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, see supra II.A.1.,
the States have demonstrated an injury in fact. Accordingly, the States have satisfied their
burden to demonstrate they are entitled to special solicitude in the standing inquiry.
causation between the EPA’s decision not to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions
and the state’s interest in protecting its physical territory. 549 U.S. at 523–24, 127 S.Ct. at
1456–57. As detailed above, the links between the States’ injuries and the Memoranda
here are not perceptibly frailer than in Massachusetts and likely are firmer. See also Lujan,
504 U.S. at 572 n.7, 112 S.Ct. at 2142 n.7 (“The person who has been accorded a procedural
right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal
standards for redressability and immediacy.”). The States have standing under the
special solicitude inquiry. Accordingly, the Court finds it has jurisdiction to consider the
States’ claims.21
21 In sum, having concluded that the States have standing, the Court must exercise
jurisdiction. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (noting that
federal courts “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to
usurp that which is not given”); see also Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572
U.S. 118, 126, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (resolving doctrinal tension that had
developed with a federal court’s “virtually unflagging” obligation to “hear and decide cases
within its jurisdiction” (internal quotation omitted)).
46
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 47 of 160
B. JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Court must next determine whether the States’ claims are reviewable before
turning to the merits of the Motion. Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128, 134 S.Ct. at 1387–88. In so
doing, the Court narrows the focus to the States’ APA claims. The APA imposes four
general requirements that must be satisfied before a federal court can review agency
action. See Bennett, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154. To start, no statute may bar judicial
review. Id. at 175, 117 S.Ct. at 1167; 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). Next, the new guidance outlined
in the February 18 Memorandum must constitute a “final agency action.” Bennett, 520
U.S. at 175, 117 S.Ct. at 1167; 5 U.S.C. § 704. Third, the new guidance must not be
“committed to agency discretion by law.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 175, 117 S.Ct. at 1167; 5
U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). Finally, the States must show that their injuries are within the “zone
Government. Bennett, 520 U.S. at 163, 117 S.Ct. at 1161; 5 U.S.C. § 702. The Court finds
Under the APA, an action may not proceed when another statute precludes
“many provisions . . . aimed at protecting the Executive’s discretion from the courts[.]”
Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 486, 119 S.Ct. 936, 945, 142
L.Ed.2d 940 (1999). Banking on this, the Government contends that Sections 1252,
1231(h), and 1226(e) protect the Executive Branch’s discretion from the States’ claims
before this Court. (Dkt. No. 42 at 30–35). The Court will address each in turn.
47
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 48 of 160
First, the Government makes the same arguments it articulated in Texas I that 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) bar judicial review of the States’ APA claims. (Id. at 30–31);
see also (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 83 at 27).22 The States disagree arguing that the provisions are
irrelevant to this case because they apply “only with respect to review of an order of
removal under subsection (a)(1).” (Dkt. No. 51 at 27–28) (quotations omitted). As in Texas
I, the Court agrees with the States and incorporates by reference its decision on the issue
in that case. ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *29–30 & n.42; see also Nielsen
v. Preap, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 139 S.Ct. 954, 962, 203 L.Ed.2d 333 (2019) (holding that
Section 1252(b)(9) does not preclude judicial review of respondents’ challenge to the
Government’s detention authority under Section 1226 because respondents “are not
asking for review of an order of removal; they are not challenging the decision to detain
them in the first place or to seek removal as opposed to the decision to deny them bond
hearings; and they are not even challenging any part of the process by which their
removability will be determined” (quotations omitted)); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hile [Sections 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9)] limit how immigrants can
48
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 49 of 160
challenge their removal proceedings, they are not jurisdiction-stripping statutes that, by
their terms, foreclose all judicial review of agency actions. Instead, the provisions channel
judicial review over final orders of removal to the courts of appeals.”(emphases added)).
Next, the Government, again repeating its stance in Texas I, argues that any of the
States’ claims brought under Section 1231 are precluded from judicial review by
Subsection (h). (Dkt. No. 42 at 34); see also (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 83 at 30–32). Section
1231(h) provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to create any
substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against
the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(h). In
this case, the Government rehashes its prior argument in Texas I that the meaning of
“party” in Section 1231(h) includes the States. This time around, it argues that because
Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “party” as “one by or against whom a lawsuit
is brought,” the Court was in error when it concluded that “party” in that section
narrowly means “alien in a removal proceeding.” (Id. at 34–35); see also Texas I, ____
F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *23–28. For their part, the States unsurprisingly
agree that the Court got it right the first time around and succinctly agrees with the
Court’s disposition. (Dkt. No. 51 at 28–29). The Court agrees with the States.
Although the Government is correct in arguing that “party” may have a broad
dictionary definition, statutory construction is more complex. On the surface, the plain
definition—could refer to (1) any party to the removal proceedings or (2) any party to any
proceeding. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *24. This potential
49
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 50 of 160
for multiple meanings of “party” in Section 1231(h) does not necessarily render the text
ambiguous; if “all but one of the meanings” of the word party in Section 1231(h) can be
States, 508 U.S. 129, 132–33, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 1996–97, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993) (superseded by
statute on other grounds). The well-established process for interpreting a text with
potential ambiguity focuses on “text, context, structure, and history.” See Texas v. EPA,
983 F.3d 826, 836 (5th Cir. 2020). “Statutory language has meaning only in context.” Texas
I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *24 (quoting Graham Cnty. Soil & Water
Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 415, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 2449, 162 L.Ed.2d
390 (2005)). While a dictionary can illuminate the “core meanings of a term,” “the
determined in the context in which they appear.” Texas, 983 F.3d at 837 n.2 (quoting
Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 418–19
(2012)). In short, the Court in Texas I conducted an in-depth analysis of the term “party,”
the statute, and the history of the statutory scheme and, having done so, the Court
determined that “party” in Section 1231(h) means “alien in a removal proceeding.” See
Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *23–28. The Government has offered
nothing to convince the Court that its analysis and conclusion in Texas I were in error.
23 The Court in Texas I held that Section 1231(h) was unambiguous. ___ F. Supp. 3d at ____,
2021 WL 2096669, at *26 & n.4. Hence, the Court did not find Chevron deference applied to the
Government’s preferred interpretation of Section 1231(h). Id. The Court adopts that reasoning
by reference here. The Court additionally notes that the Government, like in Texas I, fails to
invoke any claim to Chevron deference with respect to Section 1231(h) in its Response to this
Motion.
50
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 51 of 160
Thus, the Court adopts its prior reasoning and conclusion in Texas I with respect to
Section 1231(h).
Lastly, the Government contends that Section 1226(e) bars the States’ claims as
they relate to Section 1226(c). (Dkt. No. 42 at 32–33). Section 1226(e) provides:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). The Government insists that determinations under Section 1226(c) are
discretionary because the federal government “may detain a noncitizen under § 1226—
commence removal proceedings in the first instance, by issuing a notice to appear.” (Id.)
(citations omitted).
Voicing their disagreement, the States allege that Subsection (e) is irrelevant to the
action since it applies only to discretionary decisions to detain individual aliens and not
to lawsuits on the Government’s detention authority. (Dkt. No. 18 at 39); (Dkt. No. 51 at
28). And because Section 1226(c) imposes a mandatory duty to detain, as the States argue,
it follows that Section 1226(e) does not apply to Subsection (c). (Id.); see infra II.B.3.a. The
51
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 52 of 160
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that Subsection (e)’s limitation “applies only
____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 962 (emphasis added). Section 1226(e), therefore, “does not
block lawsuits over ‘the extent of the Government’s detention authority under the
‘statutory framework’ as a whole.’” Id. (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, ____ U.S. ____,
____, 138 S.Ct. 830, 841, 200 L.Ed.2d 122 (2018) (quoting Demore, 538 U.S. at 517, 123 S.Ct.
rather than to the legislation establishing the framework for those decisions.” Parra v.
Perryman, 172 F.3d 954, 957 (7th Cir. 1999). So, for instance, Subsection (e) poses no hurdle
for a respondent who challenges the statutory framework that permits his detention
without bail under Section 1226. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 517, 123 S.Ct. at 1714. Section
1226(e) does not preclude challenges to the Government’s alleged authority to detain
certain aliens without a bond hearing under Sections 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c).
Jennings, ____ U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at 839, 841. It also does not bar habeas corpus
petitions. See Parra, 172 F.3d at 957. Further, Subsection (e) does not prevent plaintiffs
from questioning whether the Government has the power under Section 1226(c) to detain
certain aliens despite failing to detain the aliens immediately after they were released as
required by Section 1226(c). Preap, ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 961–62; see also infra
II.B.4. Thus, Section 1226(e) does not prohibit parties from “disput[ing] the extent of the
statutory authority that the Government claims.” Preap, ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 962
(emphasis added).
52
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 53 of 160
Here, the States’ claims against the Government clearly “dispute the extent of the
statutory authority that the Government claims.” See id. In their Complaint, the States
allege the Government does not have any discretion under Section 1226(c) to determine
whether certain aliens must be detained when released from custody. See (Dkt. No. 1 at
¶¶ 35, 37–38, 94–101); see also (Dkt. No. 18 at 39). In effect, “the general extent of the
Government’s authority under § 1226(c) is precisely the issue here.” Preap, ____ U.S. at
____, 139 S.Ct. at 962. Thus, “because the extent of the Government’s detention authority
is not a matter of ‘discretionary judgment,’ ‘action,’ or ‘decision,’” this case “falls outside
of the scope of § 1226(e).” Jennings, ____ U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at 841.
Accordingly, the Court concludes Sections 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9), 1231(h), and
1226(e) do not preclude the States’ claims. There are no statutory bars to reviewing these
claims.
The Court next considers whether the enforcement priorities set forth in the
judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final
agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial
review.”). “Under the APA, an aggrieved party may file suit in a federal district court to
obtain review of any final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in
a court.” Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., ____ U.S. ____, ____, 138 S.Ct. 617, 626, 199
L.Ed.2d 501 (2018) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 704) (internal quotations omitted). The States and
the Government agree on the standard used to determine whether an agency action is
53
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 54 of 160
“final.” See (Dkt. No. 18 at 37–38); (Dkt. No. 42 at 26). That standard requires two
conditions to be satisfied. See U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 1129, ____,
136 S.Ct. 1807, 1813, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016). “First, the action must mark the
tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which rights or
obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Id.
(citing Bennett, 520 U.S. at 177–78, 117 S.Ct. at 1168). The Parties disagree whether the
Memoranda constitute final agency action. (Dkt. No. 18 at 37–38); (Dkt. No. 42 at 26–28).
The first condition that must be satisfied for a court to find that an agency’s action
is final is that the action constitutes “the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking
process.” Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1813. A consummation of this decision-
making process is present when the action is “definitive [in] nature” rather than
“advisory in nature.” Id. The Court finds the Memoranda easily satisfy this condition.
Moreover, the February 18 Memorandum states, “[i]t applies to all U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) Directorates and Program Offices, and it covers enforcement
expenditures, and strategic planning.” (Id.) (emphasis added). The immediacy and
54
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 55 of 160
definite nature of the application of this guidance to all enforcement actions and custody
decisions made by all ICE Directorates and Program Offices strongly suggest the agency’s
decision is final. See Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1813.
arguing “the Secretary retains the discretion to change or abandon these policies at any
time[.]” (Dkt. No. 42 at 27). This argument stems from the February 18 Memorandum,
which states, “[t]his interim guidance will remain in effect until Secretary Mayorkas
issues new enforcement guidelines,” which will occur “only after consultation with the
leadership and workforce of ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other
Department of Homeland Security (Department) agencies and offices.” (Dkt. No. 19-2 at
2). The Government’s argument is unpersuasive. The mere fact that an agency says an
action is not final because it maintains “discretion” to alter a policy is insufficient to render
an action nonfinal. See Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1814 (“The Corps may
action, and does not make an otherwise definitive decision nonfinal.” (citation omitted));
Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120, 127, 132 S.Ct. 1367, 1372, 182 L.Ed.2d 367 (2012) (“The mere
possibility that an agency might reconsider in light of ‘informal discussion’ and invited
contentions of inaccuracy does not suffice to make an otherwise final agency action
nonfinal.”).
Here, the Government’s insinuation that agency action is not final simply because
the agency says so, would produce the absurd result of precluding judicial review of any
55
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 56 of 160
policy that the agency says is not final. Indeed, if such a rule were followed, then an
agency could avoid judicial review of its action in perpetuity simply by labeling its action
as “interim” or “temporary” and stating that the agency maintains the ability to repeal or
revise it in the future. In fact, this case demonstrates how an agency could potentially tie
the judiciary’s hands if the agency’s action is not final simply because the agency says it
is not.
In this case, the February 18 Memorandum took effect immediately upon issuance.
(Dkt. No. 19-2 at 2). The Memorandum states it would “remain in effect until Secretary
Mayorkas issues new enforcement guidelines.” (Id.). It also states Secretary Mayorkas
“anticipate[d] issuing these guidelines in less than 90 days,” meaning the new guidance
would be issued before May 19, 2021. (Id.). But that did not happen. See (Dkt. No. 63 at
represented to the district court that it “currently expect[s] that the Secretary will issue
new immigration priorities in the beginning of July.” Arizona v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
No. 2:21-cv-00186-SRB, 2021 WL 2787930 (D. Ariz. June 7, 2021), Dkt. No. 85 at 2. Once
again, the new guidance was not released. See (Dkt. No. 63 at 3–4). The Government now
projects “the Secretary will issue new immigration enforcement priorities by the end of
August or the beginning of September.” (Dkt. No. 63 at 3–4). Notably, the Government
“caution[s] that this is only [its] current expectation.” (Id. at 4) (emphasis added). In other
words, the Government’s expectation could once again change, and the issuance of the
new guidance could be delayed even longer. Thus, a purely subjective definition of
nonfinality would be awfully convenient for the Government—but that is not what the
56
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 57 of 160
law provides. Rather, because the agency-wide application of this guidance has an
indeed final. See Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1813. The Court therefore finds
The second condition that must be satisfied for a court to find that an agency’s
action is final is that the challenged action must be one by which rights or obligations
have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow. See Hawkes Co., 578
U.S. at ____, 136 S.Ct. at 1813. The Government argues the Memoranda do not satisfy
this condition because the Memoranda do not change DHS’s legal obligation to enforce
the law in the manner prescribed in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 42 at 26–
28). The Government also argues the Memoranda do not “change any person’s legal
status, confer any legal benefits, or have any ‘legal consequences.’” (Id. at 27). Stated
differently, the Government contends the Memoranda do not affect the rights or
obligations of the States, aliens, or any other person or entity. In support, the Government
points to the February 18 Memorandum, which states that the Memorandum does not
“create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law.” (Id. at 27)
(citing (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 8)). But once again, what the Memoranda say and do are
different. The Court finds the Memoranda satisfy the second condition.
First, the Government’s assertion that the Memoranda do not alter DHS’s legal
obligations to detain certain aliens under Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) is demonstrably
false. In deciphering the meaning of Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) below, see infra
57
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 58 of 160
II.B.3.a., the Court goes to great lengths to discuss what obligations those statutory
provisions create for DHS. In sum, Section 1226(c) obligates DHS to detain all aliens who
fall within the ambit of that provision when they are “released” from state custody. Section
1231(a)(2) requires DHS to detain all aliens with final orders of removal “during the
removal period.”
mandates set forth in these statutory provisions. This new scheme creates two categories
of aliens who are required to be detained: priorities and nonpriorities. See (Dkt. No. 19-2
at 4–7). It also sets forth a requirement that ICE agents obtain preapproval to detain aliens
who are deemed nonpriorities. (Id. at 7). The plain meaning of Sections 1226(c) and
1231(a)(2) allows for neither this specific prioritization scheme nor its preapproval
process; they simply require DHS to detain all aliens described therein at a certain time
or for a specific duration. Because the Memoranda require DHS to enforce the law in a
different way than what Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) prescribe, the Memoranda
classifying the Memoranda as final agency action. See Texas, 86 F. Supp. 3d at 648–49
(finding that DAPA is a final agency action, in part, because “[a]s evidenced by the
mandatory language throughout the DAPA Memorandum requiring USCIS and ICE to
take certain actions, the Secretary’s Directive clearly establishes the obligations of the
58
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 59 of 160
Next, the Government contends the Memoranda do not alter the rights or
obligations of the States or aliens in the country. The Court disagrees. Based on the
record before the Court, the Memoranda affect Texas’s legal obligation to provide
program jointly funded by the federal government and the states.” (Dkt. No. 19-7 at ¶ 7)
(emphases added). Illegal aliens are eligible to participate in this program. See (Id.); 8
U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1)(A). An alien in Texas who is eligible for Emergency Medicaid and
presently in state custody can benefit from the program after being released.24 Texas is
therefore legally obligated to bear part of the cost of Emergency Medicaid for aliens who
qualify for the program and are not detained by ICE after being released from state
custody.
But as should be clear by now, not all aliens released from state incarceration are
returned to society. And that is because of Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). Again,
pursuant to Section 1226(c), DHS is required to detain all aliens who have committed
certain serious offenses as soon as they are released from state custody. And per Section
1231(a)(2), DHS is required to detain certain aliens during their removal period. Instead,
because of the Memoranda, DHS is no longer detaining all of these aliens as soon as they
are released from state custody or during their removal periods. Texas will therefore
have a legal obligation to share the cost of providing Emergency Medicaid to aliens who
24 Indeed, even the Executive Branch in a website has stated that incarcerated individuals
may apply for Medicaid coverage in their respective states and thereafter be eligible for benefits
after release from custody. See HealthCare.gov, Health coverage for incarcerated people,
https://www.healthcare.gov/incarcerated-people/.
59
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 60 of 160
qualify for the program and, under the Memoranda, are not detained by ICE after being
As for the rights of aliens, another district court has already concluded the
Memoranda affect the rights of certain aliens presently detained. See Hussein S.M. v.
Garland, No. CV 21-348 (JRT/TNL), 2021 WL 1986125, at *3 (D. Minn. May 18, 2021). As
this Court noted in Texas I, “an [alien] who has been detained for six months may be
entitled to release if ‘it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of
2096669, at *31 (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. at 2505). In Hussein S.M., a
detained alien with a final of order of removal filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
to secure his release from detention. 2021 WL 1986125, at *1. The district court granted
the petition, relying on the civil immigration enforcement priorities set forth in the
25 The Court is also concerned that the Memoranda affect the States’ legal obligation to
provide a public-school education to certain noncitizens following their release from juvenile
detention. For example, Texas is required by both federal and state law to provide noncitizen
children with a public-school education. See generally Plyler, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (holding
that a Texas statute that withheld state funds for educating children who were not “legally
admitted” was unconstitutional); see also LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 416 (5th Cir. 2005) (“In . . .
Plyler, the [Supreme] Court employed a heightened level of rational basis review to invalidate a
Texas law that denied primary public education to children of illegal aliens.”); Texas v. United
States, 106 F.3d 661, 666 (5th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he State’s public education expenditures for the
children of undocumented aliens are required by the equal protection clause[.]” (citing Plyler, 457
U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382)). This obligation would necessarily include juveniles released from the
custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (“TJJD”) who are not detained by ICE because
of the Memoranda. See (Dkt. No. 19-9 at ¶ 7) (“As Chapter 25, Texas Education Code, requires a
child to attend school and as Plyler . . . prohibits denying undocumented children of illegal
immigrants the right to attend public school, to the extent ICE does not take custody of non-
citizen juveniles set to be released from TJJD custody, it is my understanding that those non-
citizen juveniles who have not already received their General Educational Development or high
school diploma attend Texas public schools after being released.”). The Court is interested in
further briefing on this issue at the next stage of this litigation.
60
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 61 of 160
*3. Because the alien in Hussein S.M. did not fall within one of the priority groups, the
district court found “his removal is unlikely to be imminent despite ongoing removal
Memoranda directly affect an alien’s right to be free from prolonged detention. The
Court therefore concludes the Memoranda affect the rights of and have significant legal
In sum, the Court finds the Memoranda are the consummation of DHS’s decision-
making process and determine certain rights and legal obligations. Therefore, the Court
concludes the Memoranda constitute final agency action under Section 704 of the APA.26
U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court now inquires whether the implementation of
discretion by law.
The APA embodies a “basic presumption of judicial review.” Lincoln v. Vigil, 508
U.S. 182, 190, 113 S.Ct. 2024, 2030, 124 L.Ed.2d 101 (1993) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1511, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). But this is “just” a
61
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 62 of 160
presumption. Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 190, 113 S.Ct. at 2030. “‘[R]eview is not to be had’ in
those rare circumstances where the relevant statute ‘is drawn so that a court would have
no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.’” Id.
at 191, 113 S.Ct. at 2031 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655,
84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)). Where there is no meaningful standard to apply, “the statute
(‘law’) can be taken to have ‘committed’ the decisionmaking to the agency’s judgment
absolutely.” Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 191, 113 S.Ct. at 2031 (quoting Heckler, 470 U.S. at 830,
Namely, “an agency’s decision not to institute enforcement proceedings.” Id. (citing
Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831, 105 S.Ct. at 1655–56). Non-enforcement decisions, however, are
only “presumptively unreviewable.” Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832–33, 105 S.Ct. at 1656. The
Supreme Court has outlined a narrow but clear roadmap to overcoming that
presumption and a second, less–traveled path. As for the first: “the presumption may be
rebutted where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow
in exercising its enforcement powers.” Id. As for the second: it may be “justifiably . . .
found that the agency has ‘consciously and expressly adopted a general policy’ that is so
extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” Id. at 833 n.4, 105
S.Ct. at 1656 n.4 (quoting Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en
banc)). Although the Supreme Court has not (yet) found this latter type of “abdication,”
it has nevertheless instructed that any such inquiry should focus on “the statute
62
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 63 of 160
conferring authority on the agency,” which “might indicate that such decisions were not
‘committed to agency discretion.’” Heckler, 470 U.S. at 833 n.4, 105 S.Ct. at 1656 n.4; see
In this case, the Government argues the States’ claims are unreviewable because
the new guidelines contained in the February 18 Memorandum are committed to agency
discretion by law. More precisely, the Government argues: (1) the substantive statutes in
question, Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), do not set out the specific mandatory duties the
States assert, that is, the duty to detain certain aliens subject to those two sections; (2) even
if these statutes establish mandatory duties, the new guidelines “simply establish[]
enforcement priorities” since they do “not direct ICE officials to cease detaining any
particular noncitizen subject to either § 1226(c) or § 1231(a)(2)”; and (3) assuming the first
two arguments fail, the Executive Branch may, in effect, dispense with a congressional
power that the Constitution confers on the President.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 28–30). Opposing
the Government’s suppositions, the States contend that, although the Government wields
tremendous discretion in this area of immigration law, Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2)
limit this discretion by mandating the detention of certain aliens when they are released
or during the removal period. (Dkt. No. 51 at 29–30). The Court now turns to each of
these arguments.
The Government first argues that “shall” in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) does
not impose any mandatory duties or guidelines for the Government to follow. The Court
63
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 64 of 160
disagrees. Under Section 1226(c), “the Attorney General shall take into custody” certain
aliens who have either committed specified offenses or who are otherwise deemed
deportable under the INA “when the alien is released” from custody. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)
(emphasis added). Likewise, Section 1231(a)(2) provides, “the Attorney General shall
detain the alien” “during [the alien’s] removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (emphasis
added).
U.S. ____, ____, 141 S.Ct. 2271, 2281 (2021) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)). And under
circumstances” “[f]or certain criminal aliens and aliens who have connections to
terrorism.” Id. at ____ n.2, 141 S.Ct. at 2280 n.2 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)). In light of
Guzman Chavez, it seems there is no dispute that Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) are
mandatory.
principle that Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) mandate the detention of certain aliens at
specific points in time. See Preap, ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 959 (finding under Section
1226(c) certain criminal aliens “must be arrested when ‘they are released’ from custody
on criminal charges and . . . must be detained without a bond hearing until the question
of their removal is resolved” (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)) (emphasis added)); Jennings, ____
U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at 835 (Ҥ 1226(c) makes clear that detention of aliens within its
64
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 65 of 160
(emphasis added)); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 683, 121 S.Ct. at 2495 (“After entry of a final
removal order and during the 90-day removal period, however, aliens must be held in
custody.” (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)) (emphasis in original)); Demore, 538 U.S. at 521, 123
S.Ct. at 1716 (noting Section 1226 “requir[ed] the Attorney General to detain a subset of
added)); Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375, 377, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Section 1226(c) requires the
criminal aliens ‘when’ those aliens are released from other custody.” (emphases added));
Rodney v. Mukasey, 340 F. App’x 761, 764 & n.3 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (interpreting
“shall” in Section 1231(a)(2) to mean the Attorney General “must” detain the alien for a
certain period (emphasis added)); Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir.
2004) (observing that, in Demore, the Supreme Court “approved the mandatory detention
of a criminal alien during removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) even in the
absence of an individualized finding that the alien was unlikely to appear for his removal
hearing if released on bond” (emphasis added)); Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053,
1059 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that detention under Section 1231(a)(2) is mandatory);
(holding Section 1231(a)(2) is “crystal clear” in mandating the detention of aliens subject
to Section 1231, especially with respect to individuals “who have been found
Supp. 2d 229, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that, while Section 1226(a) provides ICE
65
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 66 of 160
with the discretion to detain any alien pending a decision in removal proceedings,
“[a]liens who have been convicted of certain enumerated offenses, however, including
Accordingly, the Court concludes, following Guzman Chavez and the foregoing
overwhelming precedent, the word “shall” means “must” in Sections 1226(c) and
and aliens with final orders of removal at certain points in time to comply with those
statutes.
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear interpretation of Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
the Government nevertheless argues that Guzman Chavez and, by extension, all other
related court rulings are irrelevant here. The Government contends Guzman Chavez “did
individuals covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).” (Dkt. No. 67 at 1).
authority certain individuals were detained and whether such individuals were entitled
to bond hearings.” (Id.). In short, the Government argues the Court should disregard
Guzman Chavez’s statements on Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2)—and the numerous court
holdings that precede Guzman Chavez—because those were not central to the case’s
holding and thus were dicta that need not be followed. The Court disagrees.
Guzman Chavez’s treatment of Sections 1226 and 1231 were central to its holding.
The case’s key question was whether certain aliens could be released on bond while
66
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 67 of 160
petitioning for relief from removal. That question was necessarily answered by analyses
who were detained following their unlawful reentrance into the United States after
previously being removed—sought release on bond while they were pursuing relief from
removal. Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. at ____, 141 S.Ct. at 2280. The respondents argued
that Section 1226, which generally conferred discretion to the Government to detain
aliens, provided them an avenue to be released on bond. Id. at ____, 141 S.Ct. at 2283–84.
However, the Government in that action contended that Section 1231, which mandates
requiring their detention to be without bond. Id.; see also Brief for Petitioner, Johnson v.
Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. ____, 141 S.Ct. 2271 (2021) (No. 19-897), 2020 WL 4938065. The
Supreme Court was thus required to determine which INA provision applied to the
detention was mandatory under the relevant statutes. See Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. at
Guzman Chavez ultimately held Section 1231 applies to the respondents since they
had effectively been ordered removed through the reinstatement of their previous orders
of removal. See id. at ____, 141 S.Ct. at 2287–91. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme
Court compared Section 1226, which, again, applies to the arrest and detention of an alien
“pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States,” id. at
____, 141 S.Ct. at 2281, with Section 1231, which applies to an alien ordered removed, id.
67
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 68 of 160
In the Supreme Court’s discussion of Section 1226, it noted “DHS,” pursuant to that
provision, “may arrest and detain the alien,” pending that alien’s removal decision. Id.
Such an alien “may generally apply for release on bond or conditional parole.” Id.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court probed further, stating “there is one exception” to this
general rule: for certain criminal aliens, “detention is mandatory” under Section 1226(c). Id.
at ____ n.2, 141 S.Ct. at 2280 n.2 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)) (emphasis added). Like Section
1226(c)’s exception, the Supreme Court stated Section 1231’s detention is “mandatory”
precisely because of Section 1231(a)(2). Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. at ____, 141 S.Ct. at
1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) as mandating detention was essential to the case’s holding.
Tellingly, the Government itself admitted during briefing in Guzman Chavez that
Section 1226(c) imposed a mandatory duty to detain certain criminal aliens.27 The
separate provision, Section 1226(c), makes an exception to that general rule, providing that
the government ‘shall’ take into custody and not release certain criminal aliens.” Brief
for Petitioner, 2020 WL 4938065, at *5 (No. 19-897) (emphasis added). The Government
also argued in its reply brief that the Supreme Court’s “intervention” in Guzman Chavez
27 As another Texas court said of a similar change in litigation position, “[b]ut that was
then, and this is now.” Texas v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 3d 579, 611 (N.D. Tex. 2018), aff’d in
part, vacated in part, remanded, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019), rev’d and remanded sub nom. California v.
Texas, 141 S.Ct. 2104 (2021).
68
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 69 of 160
removal and are in withholding-only proceedings.” Reply Brief for Petitioner, Johnson v.
Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. ____, 141 S.Ct. 2271 (2021) (No. 19-897) 2020 WL 3124376, at *7
(emphasis added). Likewise, with respect to Section 1231(a)(2), the Government stated it
had “long read” the statute “to require the detention of terrorist and criminal aliens.”
Reply Brief for Petitioner, Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, ____ U.S. ____, 141 S.Ct. 2271 (2021)
(No. 19-897) 2020 WL 7249055, at *17 & footnote (emphases added). Thus, in conjunction
with Guzman Chavez, the Court takes the Government at its word and finds “shall” means
“must” in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) with respect to the detention of certain criminal
aliens.
Second, even if the clear principles delineated in Guzman Chavez, Preap, Zadvydas,
and the like are dicta, they are persuasive, nonetheless. As the Fifth Circuit has noted,
“[i]t is well established in this circuit that, although we are ‘not bound by dicta, even of
[this court,] [d]icta of the Supreme Court are, of course, another matter.’” Peake v. Ayobami
(In re Ayobami), 879 F.3d 152, 154 n.3 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Campaign for S. Equal. v.
Bryant, 791 F.3d 625, 627 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015)).28 Thus, the Court follows the Fifth Circuit
28 Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit concluded, “dicta from the Supreme Court is not
something to be lightly cast aside.” Schwab v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308, 1325 (11th Cir. 2006)
(collecting cases with similar findings) (quoting Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386, 1392
n.4 (11th Cir. 1997)). Indeed, “Supreme Court dicta have a weight that is greater than ordinary
judicial dicta as prophecy of what that Court might hold,” so this Court cannot “blandly shrug
them off because they were not a holding.” See United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122,
n.17 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citations omitted). Other circuits agree. See McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of
Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (“[F]ederal appellate courts are bound by the Supreme Court’s
considered dicta almost as firmly as by the Court’s outright holdings, particularly when, as here,
a dictum is of recent vintage and not enfeebled by any subsequent statement.”); United States v.
Bell, 524 F.2d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 1975) (considering that dicta “must be given considerable weight
and cannot be ignored in the resolution of [a] close question”); Oyebanji v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 260,
(continue)
69
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 70 of 160
and its sister circuits and defers to Guzman Chavez, Preap, Zadvydas, and other related
Supreme Court precedent even if the statements on Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) in
those cases were dicta, as the Government contends. The Court is not free to treat
Supreme Court dicta as cavalierly as the Government suggests. Accordingly, the Court
applies the caselaw discussed above and holds that the “shall” found in Sections 1226(c)
and 1231(a)(2) means “must,” imposing on the Government a duty to detain certain
criminal aliens and those with final orders of removal when released and during the
Arguments about dicta aside, the Court’s own statutory interpretation of Sections
1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) also leads to the conclusion that “shall” means “must” in those
sections. See Scalia & Garner, supra, at 53 (“Every application of a text to particular
264–65 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[A]s a lower federal court, we are advised to follow the Supreme Court’s
‘considered dicta.’” (quoting McCoy, 950 F.2d at 19)); Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292,
298 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) (“[A]s we and our sister circuits have frequently noted, . . . carefully
considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated
as authoritative.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718,
724 (D.C. Cir. 2003))); United States v. Marlow, 278 F.3d 581, 588 n.7 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that
lower courts are “obligated to follow Supreme Court dicta, particularly where there is not
substantial reason for disregarding it, such as age or subsequent statements undermining its
rationale” (citing Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214, 217 (10th Cir. 1996))); Nichol v. Pullman
Standard, Inc., 889 F.2d 115, 120 n.8 (7th Cir. 1989) (noting that lower courts “should respect
considered Supreme Court dicta”); McDonough v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931, 942 (8th Cir. 2015)
(“[F]ederal courts . . . are not ‘free to limit Supreme Court opinions precisely to the facts of each
case.’ Instead, federal courts ‘are bound by the Supreme Court’s considered dicta almost as firmly
as by the Court’s outright holdings[.]’” (quoting City of Timber Lake v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
10 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 1993))); Bangor Hydro–Elec. Co. v. FERC, 78 F.3d 659, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(“It may be dicta, but Supreme Court dicta tends to have somewhat greater force-particularly
when expressed so unequivocally.”).
70
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 71 of 160
“The task of statutory interpretation begins and, if possible, ends with the
language of the statute.” Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir.
2013). “When the language is plain, [the court] ‘must enforce the statute’s plain meaning,
unless absurd.’” Id. (quoting In re Nowlin, 576 F.3d 258, 261–62 (5th Cir. 2009)); see also
BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183, 124 S.Ct. 1587, 1593, 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004)
(“The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires [the court] to ‘presume that
[the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.’”
(quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117
L.Ed.2d 391 (1992))). “A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible of more than one accepted
meaning.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Perry, 102 F.3d 144, 146 (5th Cir. 1996). Multiple
accepted meanings do not exist merely because a statute’s “authors did not have the
forethought expressly to contradict any creative contortion that may later be constructed
to expand or prune its scope.” Moore v. Hannon Food Serv., Inc., 317 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.
2003). Thus, as before, regarding interpreting Section 1231(h), the Court must initially
determine whether “all but one of the meanings” of the word “shall” in Sections 1226(c)
and 1231(a)(2) is “ordinarily eliminated by context.” Deal, 508 U.S. at 132–33, 113 S.Ct. at
1996–97.
For this analysis, the Court applies “the traditional means of statutory
interpretation, which include the text itself, its history, and its purpose.” Bellum v. PCE
Constructors, Inc., 407 F.3d 734, 739 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Put differently, the
Court must initially “look first to the word’s ordinary meaning,” Schindler Elevator Corp.
v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401, 407, 131 S.Ct. 1885, 1891, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011),
71
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 72 of 160
since “[s]tatutory language has meaning only in context.” Graham Cnty., 545 U.S. at 415,
125 S.Ct. at 2449 (citing Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 9, 125 S.Ct. 377, 382, 160 L.Ed.2d 271
provision’s meaning” may the Court “conclude that it is ambiguous.” Perry, 102 F.3d at
147.
“[T]he word ‘shall’ usually connotes a requirement.” Maine Cmty. Health Options
v. United States, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 140 S.Ct. 1308, 1320, 206 L.Ed.2d 764 (2020); see also
Scalia & Garner, supra, at 112 (“When drafters use shall and may correctly, the traditional
rule holds—beautifully.”). The Supreme Court has nonetheless cautioned, “[a]s against
the government, the word ‘shall,’ when used in statutes, is to be construed as ‘may,’
unless a contrary intention is manifest.” Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168, 170, 24 L.Ed.
423 (1877).
this Court identified Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 162
L.Ed.2d 658 (2005), a Supreme Court case upon which the Government relies, (6:21-cv-3,
Dkt. No. 82 at 19); (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 83 at 25–26, 34); (6:21-cv-16, Dkt. No. 42 at 36–38),
as an apt example of the need for legislative intent to determine that “shall” connotes a
requirement. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *33. In Castle Rock,
the respondent claimed her due process rights were violated because a police department
refused to enforce restraining orders despite language printed on the orders themselves
stating that an “officer shall arrest” a restrained person where probable cause of a
72
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 73 of 160
violation was evident. 545 U.S. at 754, 759, 125 S.Ct. at 2802, 2805. The Supreme Court,
“shall” could not automatically impose a “true mandate” against the police. Id. at 760–
61, 125 S.Ct. at 2805–06. What was needed—and lacking in Castle Rock—was “some
stronger indication” from the legislature. Id. at 761, 125 S.Ct. at 2806. Such an
“indication” was not present because the “shall” used in the restraining orders was “not
perceptibly more mandatory than” other state statutes using the word “shall” where the
police force was traditionally accorded discretion. Id.; see also Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S.
41, 61–62 n.32, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1861 n.32, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (noting that interpreting
“shall” as mandatory in the context of police action “flies in the face of common sense
that all police officers must use some discretion in deciding when and where to enforce
city ordinances”).
With the foregoing in mind, this Court in Texas I previously explained how a
“stronger indication” from Congress may be gleaned. In Richbourg Motor Co. v. United
States and Escoe v. Zerbst, the Supreme Court noted one “indication” sufficient to conclude
that the word “shall” in a statute imposes an obligation upon the Government is present
when the statute’s manifest purpose is to protect the public or private interests of
innocent third parties. See Richbourg Motor Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 528, 533–34, 50
S.Ct., 385, 387–88, 74 L.Ed. 1016 (1930); Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 494, 55 S.Ct. 818, 820,
79 L.Ed. 1566 (1935); see also Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *34.
The Court finds it appropriate to reiterate its explanations of these cases here.
73
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 74 of 160
In Richbourg Motor Co., the Supreme Court expressly found reason to avoid the
rule in Hecht where a statute provided that an officer “shall” take possession of a vehicle
used in the act of transporting liquor. 281 U.S. at 533–34, 50 S.Ct. at 387–88. After noting
that the statute in question was “in form mandatory throughout,” the Court explained it
forfeiture under that section . . . , with the important consequence of protecting the interests of
innocent third persons.” Id. (emphasis added). These qualities of the relevant text, the
Supreme Court explained, “suggests a definite purpose to make the protection effective”
Five years after Richbourg Motor Co., the Supreme Court in Escoe concluded that
any doubt regarding the mandatory nature of a statutory “shall” is “dispelled when we
pass from the words alone to a view of ends and aims.” 295 U.S. at 492–93, 55 S.Ct. at 819–
20 (emphasis added). In Escoe, the relevant statute appeared to require a trial court to
bring a probationer to court to revoke his probation. Id. The Supreme Court determined,
because it was “[c]lear[] [that] the end and aim of an appearance before the court must be
to enable an accused probationer to explain away the accusation,” the presentment of the
probationer was “necessary, or so the Congress must have thought, to protect the
individual against malice or oppression.” Id. at 493, 55 S.Ct. at 820. Thus, Escoe concluded
the “shall” in the relevant statute was “mandatory in meaning as well as mandatory in
form.” Id. at 494, 55 S.Ct. at 820. Leaving no doubt, the Supreme Court stated, “[s]tatutes
are not [optional] when to put them in that category would result in serious impairment
of the public or the private interests that they were intended to protect.” Id.; see also Ralpho
74
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 75 of 160
v. Bell, 569 F.2d 607, 627–28 & n.149 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (applying Escoe to “prefer a
discharge of duties “that bestows the benefits of the Act on those for whom it was chiefly
intended”).
Given the caselaw, the key in this case is whether Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2)
demonstrate a purpose to protect public or private interests. If so, the word “shall,” as
used in both sections, would connote a requirement against the Government in the
manner envisioned by Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe. Based on the following, the Court
The Supreme Court in Demore clearly explains that the purpose of Section 1226(c)
was to protect third-party interests: that of the states, citizens, and legal immigrants of
this country. Essentially, Section 1226(c) was enacted “against a backdrop of wholesale
failure by the INS [ICE’s predecessor] to deal with increasing rates of criminal activity by
aliens.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 518, 123 S.Ct. at 1714. “INS’ near-total inability to remove
deportable criminal aliens imposed” overpopulation in federal and state prisons, caused
monetary costs, took away immigration opportunities that could have been provided to
others, and increased crime in the Nation’s communities. Id. at 518–20, 123 S.Ct. at 1714–
15. Crucially, “Congress also had before it evidence that one of the major causes of the
INS’ failure to remove deportable criminal aliens was the agency’s failure to detain those
aliens during their deportation proceedings.” Id. at 519, 123 S.Ct. at 1715. Before Section
1226, “[t]he Attorney General at the time had broad discretion to conduct individualized
bond hearings and to release criminal aliens from custody during their removal
75
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 76 of 160
proceedings when those aliens were determined not to present an excessive flight risk or
threat to society.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1982 ed.)). Thus, to alleviate these issues,
Congress “enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1226, requiring the Attorney General to detain a subset of
deportable criminal aliens pending a determination of their removability.” Id. at 521, 123
S.Ct. at 1716 (emphasis added). Given Demore’s findings, the purpose of Section 1226 is
to protect the public and private interests of third parties, namely, the states, the citizens,
Subsection (c) “subtract[s],” from the discretion given to the Government in Section
1226(a). See Preap, ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 966. In fact, it does more than that.
Subsection (c) also subtracts from the general “broad discretion” that the Attorney
General originally had prior to the enactment of Section 1226. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 521,
123 S.Ct. at 1716. “Shall” in Section 1226(c), therefore, must be construed to mean “must.”
Like Section 1226(c), Section 1231(a)(2) was enacted to protect public and private
interests of the states and the people of the United States. As the Supreme Court noted
of that section. 533 U.S. at 697, 121 S.Ct. at 2502. What’s more, Section 1231 “is part of a
statute that has as its basic purpose effectuating an alien’s removal,” a purpose related to
the community’s protection. Id. Coupled with Demore’s detailed explanation of the
burdens criminal aliens impose on both the country and its people when the Government
fails to deport them, 538 U.S. at 518–20, 123 S.Ct. at 1714–15, it is evident that Section
1231(a)(2)’s purpose was to similarly protect the states, the citizens, and legal immigrants’
76
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 77 of 160
interests against the harmful effects the Government’s failure to remove certain aliens
other parts of Section 1231 use “shall” as a mandatory command. See Shuaibu v. Gonzales,
425 F.3d 1142, 1144 (8th Cir. 2005) (interpreting the “shall” in Section 1231(b)(1)(C) to
mean the Attorney General “must” attempt to remove the alien to certain countries); Kim
Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (interpreting “shall” in Section
1231(a)(3) to mean all aliens ordered released “must” comply with supervision
Section 1231(a)(1)(A) and holding the “shall” in that provision imposes a mandate on the
Government to deport aliens with final orders of removal within 90 days). These
interpretations of “shall” as mandatory in other parts of Section 1231 are yet further
indication the “shall” in Section 1231(a)(2) bears the same meaning, because “a word or
phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text.” Scalia & Garner, supra,
at 170; see also Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 232, 127 S.Ct. 2411,
2417, 168 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007) (“A standard principle of statutory construction provides
that identical words and phrases within the same statute should normally be given the
same meaning.”). Thus, for all these reasons, the “shall” in Section 1231(a)(2) necessarily
means must.
The Government does not disagree that Congress enacted Sections 1226(c)
and 1231(a)(2) to protect public or private interests. Rather, the Government demurs that
a statutory purpose of protecting third parties, as held in Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe,
77
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 78 of 160
is not a “stronger indication,” per Castle Rock, to make “shall” mandatory against any
governmental actor. (Dkt. No. 42 at 36–38); see Richbourg, 281 U.S. at 533–34, 50 S.Ct., at
387–88; Escoe, 295 U.S. at 493–94, 55 S.Ct. at 820; Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at 761, 125 S.Ct. at
2806. In making this argument, the Government reasons that the “protection of a third
party” rationale cannot serve as a stronger indication because, it claims, the very “statute
‘protected person.’” (Id. at 37–38) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at
758–59, 125 S.Ct. at 2804–05). In doing so, however, the Government ignores the Supreme
Court’s holdings in Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe. See (Id. at 36–39). In short, the
Government implies that Castle Rock overruled Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe sub silentio.
As an initial matter, this Court cannot ignore Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe where
the Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit has not expressly instructed it to do so. See
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 1921–22,
104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet
appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals
should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.”); Lopez v. City of Hous., Civil Action No. H-09-0420, 2009
WL 1456487, at *15 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2009) (Lake, J.) (“[I]t is well established that a
federal district court must generally apply an interpretation of law articulated by its
circuit court of appeals.” (quoting Perez v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 967 F. Supp.
78
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 79 of 160
920, 925 (S.D. Tex. 1997) (Jack, J.))). The Court did not disregard those cases in Texas I,
But even if the Court could ignore Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe, Castle Rock is
easily distinguishable from this case. The state statute ostensibly mandating the police
to enforce restraining orders in Castle Rock was drafted upon a background of “[a] well
established tradition of police discretion” that “ha[d] long coexisted with apparently
mandatory arrest statutes.” Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at 760, 125 S.Ct. at 2805–06 (citing 1 ABA
Standards for Criminal Justice 1-4.5, commentary, pp. 1–124 to 1–125 (2d ed. 1980)). A
similar tradition is not present with respect to Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). As
explained above, it was precisely the federal government’s “wholesale failure” “to deal
29 The Court also notes that its decision in Texas I did not rely entirely on the protection of
“public or private interests” rationale explained in Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe to support its
finding of a “stronger indication” that the “shall” in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) connoted a
requirement. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *34–35. Instead, the Court
performed a full statutory interpretation of the word “shall” in Section 1231(a)(1)(A) and relied
on numerous precedents in the Fifth Circuit and sister circuits demonstrating the mandatory
nature of that word. Id. at *33–38 (noting the Court had examined “the text, context, statutory
history, and precedent demonstrating that ‘shall’ means must in section 1231(a)(1)(A)” (emphasis
in original)). In contrast to that comprehensive analysis, the Government’s current lone attack on
the Court’s prior synthesis of the rules from Hecht, Castle Rock, Richbourg Motor Co., and Escoe is
lacking. Nevertheless, despite the in-depth analysis the Court undertook in Texas I, a district
court in Arizona arrived at a different conclusion, holding that “shall” does not mean “must” in
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Arizona, 2021 WL 2787930, at *9–10. That court’s rationale was that the
legislative intent required for Section 1231(a)(1)(A) to be mandatory—per Castle Rock—was not
present. Id. The court based its holding on (a) the statutory scheme which apparently
contemplated removals of aliens outside the 90-day period, (b) the Government’s broad
discretion to remove aliens at any stage of the removal process, and (c) some legislative history
showing that the 90-day period contemplated in the section was intended to be “merely” a
“target” date “rather than a statutory mandate.” Id. Therefore, according to the Arizona court,
“shall” did not mean “must” in Section 1231(a)(1)(A). Id. Like the Government in this case, the
district court neither cited to nor discussed Richbourg Motor Co. and Escoe. This Court respectfully
disagrees with the court in Arizona and the Government, having thoroughly probed the statutory
text, the purpose of the statutes, and legislative history of Sections 1231(a)(1)(A) in Texas I, and
Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
79
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 80 of 160
with increasing rates of criminal activity by aliens” that prompted Congress to limit the
Executive’s discretion in such matters by enacting Section 1226. See Demore, 538 U.S. at
518, 123 S.Ct. at 1714. Such specific legislative intent, backed by Supreme Court
acknowledgment, was not present in the statute interpreted in Castle Rock. Cf. 545 U.S. at
not confer a mandatory duty against the Government goes against an analysis of the
statutes’ text within the whole statutory scheme. The Supreme Court has noted that
“[t]he word ‘may’ customarily connotes discretion” and that such a “connotation is
particularly apt where . . . ‘may’ is used in contraposition to the word ‘shall.’” Jama v.
Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 346, 125 S.Ct. 694, 703, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005) (citing
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 294 n.26, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 2775 n.24, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)). That
principle proved crucial in Jama, where the Supreme Court held that because Section
1231(b)(2) of the INA states that the Attorney General “shall remove” an alien to a
explaining that the Attorney General “may” disregard the designation if certain
Section 1231(a)(2) states that the Attorney General “shall” detain certain aliens
“during the removal period,” which is defined to be a period of 90 days when an alien is
(a)(1)(C) provides that the removal period “shall” be extended beyond 90 days if certain
circumstances arise, and the alien “may” remain in detention during that extended
80
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 81 of 160
period. Id. § 1231(a)(1)(C). Again, it would be absurd if Section 1231(a)(2)—with its use
provides discretion to the Government to detain people after the initial 90-day removal
period.
Likewise, Section 1226(c) clearly juxtaposes “may” and “shall” so that there is no
Subsection (c)(1) states that the Attorney General “shall” detain certain aliens “when the
alien is released.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1). Just right after that, Subsection (c)(2) notes that
the Attorney General “may” release aliens described in Subsection (c)(1) “only if” certain
circumstances are present. Id. § 1226(c)(2). As such, for Subsection (c)(2) to have any
meaning, Subsection (c)(1) must be read as a mandate: the Attorney General must detain
aliens when released and such aliens may be released only if certain situations call for it.
If Subsection (c)(1) is not interpreted in this way, then Subsection (c)(2)—the release
certain aliens may be released—per Subsection (c)(2)—if the Government was meant to
initially have the discretion to decide which criminal aliens to detain in the first place.
This analysis of the two statutes within the overall scheme indeed tracks how the
Supreme Court and other federal courts have construed Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
81
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 82 of 160
Having concluded that “shall” means “must” in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
the Court turns to the Government’s second argument in support of its assertion that the
law. That is, regardless of the relevant sections’ mandatory nature, the new guidelines
“simply establish[] enforcement priorities” because they do “not direct ICE officials to
cease detaining any particular noncitizen.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 28–29). Put differently, the
Government argues that the guidelines do not actually stop detentions and, instead,
merely prioritize who gets detained first. As a result, the Government concludes that
the guidelines do not contravene the statutes. See (Id.). Thus, in essence, the Government
argues that it has discretion to determine the timing of when certain aliens should be
detained—if not the discretion to determine who gets detained. This argument fails as
well.
itself establishes that it is more than that. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171–72 (“Although
the DAPA Memo facially purports to confer discretion, the district court determined that
nothing about DAPA genuinely leaves the agency and its employees free to exercise
discretion.” (cleaned up)). The new guidelines violate the statutory commands of
Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) which are: to detain certain aliens “when the alien is
released,” per Section 1226(c), or “during the removal period,” per Section 1231(a)(2).
82
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 83 of 160
The Government opines that the February 18 Memorandum “directs ‘officers and
agents . . . to exercise their discretion thoughtfully’ after consideration ‘of all relevant
facts and circumstances’” concerning the arrest, detention, or removal of criminal illegal
aliens. (Dkt. No. 42 at 29) (alteration in original) (citing Dkt. No. 42-2 at 4). That statement
demonstrates that the new guidelines wade into areas that are not committed to agency
discretion. See (Id.). Because “shall” means “must” in Section 1226(c), the Executive
Branch is required to detain criminal aliens who have committed “any offense covered in
section 1182(a)(2),” “any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or
(D),” or any alien who “is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i),” “inadmissible under
§ 1226(c)(1)(A)–(D) (emphases added). This leaves no room for the Executive’s agent to
“thoughtfully” exercise discretion. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 29). And crucially, to protect the
public, Congress mandated that any alien falling under any of these categories must be
detained “when the alien is released” from state custody. Id. Likewise, Section 1231(a)(2)
requires both the detention of aliens who possess orders of removal and aliens who have
under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4)(B).”30 Id. § 1231(a)(2). And, like Section 1226(c),
30 In Texas I, the Government argued that Section 1231(a)(1)(A)’s use of the word “shall”
could not have meant “must” because at least one other “shall” in Section 1231 is not mandatory
(at least according to the Government). Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *35.
That other “shall” is apparently in Section 1231(a)(2) which reads, as stated earlier: “During the
removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien. Under no circumstance during the
removal period shall the Attorney General release an alien who has been found inadmissible
under [certain circumstances].” Id. The Government contended that reading “shall” as
mandatory in the first sentence of Section 1231(a)(2) would make the second sentence
(continue)
83
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 84 of 160
Congress in Section 1231(a)(2) mandated the timing of such detention: the aliens must be
Because of the clear mandates set forth in Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
determining whether and when an alien should be detained is not a decision committed
to agency discretion. And by prioritizing the detention of some aliens over others, the
detention—discretion it does not have. Put differently, the Government has assumed a
impermissible. See Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573 U.S. at 327, 134 S.Ct. at 2446 (“Under our
system of government, Congress makes laws and the President, acting at times through
agencies like EPA, ‘faithfully execute[s]’ them. The power of executing the laws
necessarily includes both authority and responsibility to resolve some questions left open
by Congress that arise during the law’s administration. But it does not include a power
to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” (alteration in
superfluous. Id.; see also (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 82 at 21); (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 83 at 34). The Court
found the argument unpersuasive, finding that there was a distinction between the two clauses.
Id. As the Court held, the first clause of Section 1231(a)(2) mandates the act of detaining. Id.
(citing Rodney, 340 F. App’x at 764). The second clause, on the other hand, prohibits the release
of certain individuals. Id. Thus, the Attorney General may in some circumstances “release” those
whom he has “detain[ed].” See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). Section 1231 itself prescribes the conditions
through which an alien—who is presumably presently detained—may pursue a “stay” and a
“release.” Id. § 1231(c)(2)(A), (C). In fact, it could easily be said that the prohibition on releasing
certain aliens demonstrates that Congress assumed all aliens would be detained—because they
“shall” be. Thus, the Court concluded in Texas I that the Government’s “textual” argument failed.
In this case, the Government briefly restates its argument from Texas I in an attempt to persuade
the Court to change its disposition. Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *35; see
also (Dkt. No. 42 at 39). The Court remains unpersuaded and adopts its prior conclusions from
Texas I as discussed in this footnote.
84
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 85 of 160
original) (citation omitted) (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3)); Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534
U.S. 438, 462, 122 S.Ct. 941, 956, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (finding that an agency lacked
authority “to develop new guidelines or to assign liability in a manner inconsistent with”
an “unambiguous statute”).
“Congress does not draft legislation in the expectation that the Executive will blow
through the deadlines it sets.” Preap, ____ U.S. at ____ n.6, 139 S.Ct. at 969 n.6 (emphasis
in original). In this case, Section 1226(c)’s “when . . . released” language “clarifies when
the duty to arrest is triggered: upon release from criminal custody.” Id. at ____, 139 S.Ct.
at 969. And as a logical extension of that reasoning, Section 1231(a)(2)’s “during the
removal period” language also clarifies when a duty to arrest is triggered: when the alien
is provided with a final order of removal.31 See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)–(2). In sum, Congress
has clearly specified when the duty to detain is triggered: when the alien is released as
provided by Section 1226(c) and during the removal period for Section 1231(a)(2). When
that duty to detain is triggered is not left for the agency to decide. Thus, choosing to
detain certain aliens “when . . . released,” see Section 1226(c), or “during the removal
period,” see Section 1231(a)(2), over others who are mandated to be detained at those
specific points in time is not left to agency discretion. Indeed, it is a violation of the clear
letter of the law. See Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573 U.S. at 327, 134 S.Ct. at 2446.
31 For criminal aliens in state custody, the 90-day period does not start until they are
released from state confinement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii).
85
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 86 of 160
Finally, the Government argues that the Memoranda are committed to agency
power that the Constitution confers on the President” and that such “discretion” is
“greatly magnified” in the immigration law context. (Dkt. No. 42 at 29–30) (citing Reno,
525 U.S. at 490, 119 S.Ct. at 946). As this Court stated in Texas I, “whatever ‘inherent
authority’ the Executive may have in the area of immigration, that authority—along with
the executive Power—does not include the authority to ‘suspend’ or ‘dispense with’
3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *36. The Government’s suggestion that the Executive’s
discretion is so significant that it may, in effect, dispense with laws has significant
subject is therefore worth addressing, albeit briefly, at this early stage in the litigation.
However grand the Executive’s discretion might be in enforcing immigration laws, the
Constitution does not empower the Executive to set forth a policy that, in effect, dispenses
32 This proposition does not include circumstances in which the President is asked to
enforce a law that is unconstitutional or, more specifically, a law that usurps Executive authority.
See Brett M. Kavanaugh, Our Anchor for 225 Years and Counting: The Enduring Significance of the
Precise Text of the Constitution, 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1907, 1911 (2014); Steven G. Calabresi &
Saikrishna B. Prakash, The President’s Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L.J. 541, 621–22 (1994).
After all, the Constitution commands that, “[b]efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the
President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: —‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8
(emphasis added). The Government, however, does not assert that Sections 1226(c) or 1231(a)(2)
are unconstitutional. See (Dkt. No. 42).
86
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 87 of 160
Concern over the Executive’s power to dispense with laws dates back to before the
founding of this Nation. The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of how the
English Crown had abused the dispensing power a century prior to the ratification of the
Constitution. See Michael W. McConnell, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive
Power Under the Constitution 118 (2020) (concluding that the Framers addressed the royal
“prerogatives of suspending or dispensing with the laws” in the Take Care Clause
“[g]iven that the Committee [of Detail] explicitly dealt with virtually every one of the
royal prerogatives, and especially the notorious prerogatives that had animated the
overthrow of Charles I and James II”); Michael Stokes Paulsen, Steven G. Calabresi,
Michael W. McConnell & Samuel L. Bray, The Constitution of the United States 317 (Robert
C. Clark et al. eds., 2d ed. 2013) (opining that the President’s duty to “‘take care that the
laws be faithfully executed’ . . . means that the president is not permitted to dispense with
or suspend statutes the way King James II did before the Glorious Revolution of 1688”);
Robert J. Delahunty & John C. Yoo, Dream On: The Obama Administration’s Nonenforcement
of Immigration Laws, the DREAM Act, and the Take Care Clause, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 781, 797–98
& n.95, 804–09 (2013) (detailing how the “suspending power” was abused by English
Monarchs, such as James II, and how that history influenced Americans in limiting “[t]he
executive Power”); see also Randy Barnett & Evan Bernick, The Letter & The Spirit: A Unified
Theory of Originalism, 107 Geo. L. J. 1, 20–21 (2018) (contending the Founding Fathers
fiduciary duties to honor the law, . . . remain loyal to the public interest, . . . and account for
87
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 88 of 160
prime example, King James II dispensed with the Test Acts,33 which effectively barred
Catholics from holding government or military office, “to create an enlarged standing
army under the control of Catholic officers . . . and . . . put Catholic peers in key positions
in the Privy Council and the government” because he did “[n]ot trust[] Protestant militias
and gentry to protect him from rebellion[.]” McConnell, supra, at 116; see also Zachary S.
Price, Enforcement Discretion and Executive Duty, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 671, 691 (2014) (“King
James enraged Protestants in Parliament by using his suspending and dispensing powers
Protestant dissenters.”); Delahunty & Yoo, supra, at 805–06 (“James began using his
dispensing power extensively to override the Test Acts, filling offices with his fellow
Roman Catholics.”). This decision angered many Englishmen34 and played a significant
role in igniting the Glorious Revolution, which resulted in William III and Mary II
replacing James II on the throne. Delahunty & Yoo, supra, at 807. Although no longer on
33 Specifically, the First Test Act, enacted in 1673, “was designed to ensure that anyone
holding public office, whether civil or military, would denounce the Roman Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation and receive the Anglican sacrament. Parliament’s intention was to exclude
Roman Catholics, who could not conscientiously take these tests, from holding public office more
than temporarily.” Delahunty & Yoo, supra, at 805–06. The Second Test Act, enacted in 1678,
“made certain exceptions (including one for the King himself), but essentially continued this
exclusionary policy.” Id. at 806.
34 This ire towards James II’s use of the dispensing power is best captured in the English
Bill of Rights, which says:
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil
counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and
extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of
laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament[.]
The Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M., c. 1 (1689).
88
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 89 of 160
the throne, James II had already left his mark on the future powers of the Crown. Indeed,
the English Bill of Rights of 1689 barred William III and Mary II and all future monarchs
power as had the English in 1689. See Price, supra, at 692. Notably, one of the grievances
against King George III articulated in the Declaration of Independence36 was that he
“often withheld assent from laws passed by colonial legislatures unless the laws included
a suspension clause allowing him to halt their execution.” Brief for the Cato Institute,
Professor Randy E. Barnett & Professor Jeremy Rabkin as Amici Curiae Supporting
Respondents at 5–6, United States v. Texas, ____ U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 195 L.Ed.2d 638
(2016) (mem) (per curiam) (citing Leonard Woods Labaree, Royal Government in America:
A Study of the British Colonial System Before 1783, at 224–27, 256–68 (1934)). This “allowed
the king not only to dispense with the implementation of statutes, but also to force
changes to their content—an essentially legislative power.” Id. at 5–6; see also Declaration
of Independence ¶¶ 3–4.
35 Specifically, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provides: “[T]he pretended power of
suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is
illegal” and that “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal
authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.” The Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M.,
c. 2 (1689).
36 These grievances are as follows:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good; He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Declaration of Independence ¶¶ 3–4.
89
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 90 of 160
Prior to the United States Constitution’s ratification, states were aware of this
sentiment and crafted state constitutions of their own that barred the Executive from
exercising the suspending or dispensing power. See Price, supra, at 692 (“Drawing from
this English model, several states during the American revolutionary period adopted
Calabresi, Sarah E. Agudo & Kathryn L. Dore, State Bills of Rights In 1787 and 1791: What
Individual Rights Are Really Deeply Rooted In American History and Tradition?, 85 S. Cal. L.
Rev. 1451, 1534–35 (2012) (explaining that, at the time of the founding, “state constitutions
. . . had constitutional clauses restricting the power to suspend or dispense with laws to
the legislature”); cf. Gordon S. Wood, The Origins of Vested Rights in the Early Republic, 85
Va. L. Rev. 1421, 1425–26 (1999) (noting that, “[i]n the 1760s and 1770s, during the crisis
that eventually tore apart the British empire, the American colonists had this long English
heritage of popular rights to draw upon,” including the English Bill of Rights, which
“declared illegal certain actions of the crown, including its dispensing with laws”). By
and Virginia—had state constitutions containing provisions barring the Executive from
exercising the suspending or dispensing power. See Del. Const. of 1776 Decl. of Rights,
unless by the Legislature.”); Md. Const. of 1776 Decl. of Rights, § VII (“That no power of
suspending laws, or the execution of laws, unless by or derived from the Legislature,
ought to be exercised or allowed.”); Mass. Const. of 1780 pt. 1, art. XX (“The power of
suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the
90
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 91 of 160
legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only
as the legislature shall expressly provide for.”); N.H. Const. of 1784 pt. 1, art. XXIX (“The
power of suspending the laws, or the execution of them, ought never to be exercised but
cases only as the Legislature shall expressly provide for.”); N.C. Const. of 1776 Decl. of
Rights, § V (“That all powers of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any
authority, without consent of the Representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights,
and ought not to be exercised.”); Va. Const. of 1776 Bill of Rights, § 7 (“That all power of
suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the
representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.”);
see also Calabresi, Agudo & Dore, supra, at 1534. This number soon grew to eight after
dispensing with laws to its constitution in 1790, and Vermont, which already had such a
provision in its constitution, became a state in 1791.37 See Pa. Const. of 1790 art. IX, § 12
(“That no power of suspending laws shall be exercised, unless by the legislature, or its
authority.”); Vt. Const. of 1786 Decl. of Rights, § XVII (“The power of suspending laws,
37 Not all states ratified constitutions at the time of the founding. Indeed, “two states,
Connecticut and Rhode Island, retained their Colonial Charters issued by King Charles II and did
not try to write new state constitutions or declarations of rights” at this time. Calabresi, Agudo,
& Dore, supra, at 1543; see also Narragansett Indian Tribe of R.I. v. State, 667 A.2d 280, 280 (R.I. 1995)
(“Rhode Island’s first constitution was adopted in 1842 . . . .”); Moore v. Ganim, 660 A.2d 742, 772
(Conn. 1995) (Peters, C.J., concurring) (“Of the thirteen original states, Connecticut was the
second to last to adopt a written state constitution, failing to do so until 1818.”).
91
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 92 of 160
authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the Legislature
shall expressly provide for.”); see also Calabresi, Agudo & Dore, supra, at 1535.
Although the Constitution does not contain a provision of its own explicitly
prohibiting the Executive from dispensing with laws,38 it in no way sanctions such action
by the Executive for at least two reasons. First, the Constitution separates power among
three branches, vesting executive power exclusively in the President and legislative power
exclusively in Congress. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; U.S. Const. art.
III, § 1; Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 483, 130 S.Ct. 3138,
3146, 177 L.Ed.2d 706 (2010) (“Our Constitution divided the ‘powers of the new Federal
Government into three defined categories, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.’” (quoting
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2784, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983))); see also The
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny.”); Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws bk. XI, ch. 6, pp. 151–52 (O. Piest
ed., T. Nugent transl. 1949) (“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the
same person . . . there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same
92
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 93 of 160
manner.”). Dispensing of laws is, in effect, a legislative power. See Kendall v. U.S. ex rel.
Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 612–13, 9 L.Ed. 1181 (1838); United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas.
1192, 1230 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806) (stating that the President does not have the dispensing
power, in part, because only Congress has “dominion” over the laws—i.e., the legislative
power); see also Del. Const. of 1776 Decl. of Rights, § 7; Md. Const. of 1776 Decl. of Rights,
§ VII; Mass. Const. of 1780 pt. 1, art. XX; N.H. Const. of 1784 pt. 1, art. XXIX; N.C. Const.
of 1776 Decl. of Rights, § V; Va. Const. of 1776 Bill of Rights, § 7; Pa. Const. of 1790 art. IX,
§ 12; Vt. Const. of 1786 Decl. of Rights, § XVII. As such, the Executive does not possess
this power. See Kendall, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) at 612–13 (stating that giving the President the
dispensing power “would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the
Smith, 27 F. Cas. at 1230 (“The president of the United States cannot control the statute,
nor dispense with its execution, and still less can he authorize a person to do what the
law forbids[.]”); cf. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 438, 118 S.Ct. at 2103 (“There is no provision in the
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587, 72 S.Ct. 863, 867, 96 L.Ed. 1153
(1952) (“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws
Second, the dispensing power conflicts with the Executive’s duty to faithfully
execute the laws. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In vesting the executive power in the
93
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 94 of 160
President,39 the Constitution requires the President to channel that power to perform
certain duties and prescribes how he or she is to carry out those duties.40 See id. One of
those duties, contained in the Take Care Clause, is that “he shall take Care41 that the Laws
be faithfully42 executed43 . . . .”44 Id. (emphasis added) (footnotes added); see Morrison v.
Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 689–90, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 2618, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988) (“The analysis
contained in our removal cases is designed . . . to ensure that Congress does not interfere
39 “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1.
40 “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,
and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of
Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he
shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the
United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.
41 “Care: Regard; charge; heed in order to protection and preservation.” Samuel Johnson,
A Dictionary of the English Language (1755).
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/1755/care_ns.
“Care: Charge or oversight, implying concern for safety and prosperity.” Noah Webster,
American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/care.
42 “Faithfully: Without failure of performance; honestly; exactly.” Johnson, supra.
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/1755/faithfully_adv.
“Faithfully: With strict adherence to allegiance and duty.” Webster, supra.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/faithfully.
43 “Execute: To put in act; to do what is planned or determined.” Johnson, supra.
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/1755/execute_va.
“Execute: To carry into effect; as, to execute law or justice.” Webster, supra.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/execute.
44 As stated above, the Court, at this time, declines to weigh in on the merits of the States’
separate claim that the Memoranda violate the Take Care Clause. See footnote 4. However, the
Court is interested in further briefing on this claim at the next stage of this litigation. In addition
to any issues the Parties would like to bring to the Court’s attention, the Parties should focus part
of their briefing on whether the States can bring a Take Care Clause claim independent of or in
conjunction with their APA claims.
94
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 95 of 160
with the President’s exercise of the ‘executive power’ and his constitutionally appointed
duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ under Article II.” (emphasis added)
(footnote omitted)); United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 863, 102 S.Ct. 3440,
3444, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982) (“The Constitution imposes on the President the duty to ‘take
Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II,
§ 3)); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 117, 47 S.Ct. 21, 25, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926) (“Mr.
Madison and his associates in the discussion in the House dwelt at length upon the
necessity there was for construing article 2 to give the President the sole power of removal
in his responsibility for the conduct of the executive branch, and enforced this by
emphasizing his duty expressly declared in the third section of the article to ‘take care that
the laws be faithfully executed.’” (emphasis added)); see also Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin.
Prot. Bureau, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 140 S.Ct. 2183, 2228, 207 L.Ed.2d 494 (2020) (Kagan, J.,
concurring in part) (“To begin with, the provision—‘he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed’—speaks of duty, not power.” (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const.
art. II, § 3)); Letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton45 (Sept. 7, 1792) (on
file with the National Archives) (“It is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them
to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to it; nor can the Government
longer remain a passive spectator of the contempt with which they are treated.”
(emphasis added)); Letter from John Adams to Roger Sherman46 (July 18, 1789) reprinted
in 6 The Works of John Adams, Second President of The United States 427, 429–30 (Charles
45 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0040.
46 https:// https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-0682.
95
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 96 of 160
Francis Adams ed., 1851) (stating that it is the President’s “duty to take Care that the Laws
Harv. L. Rev. F. 94, 97 (2020) (“The duty to see the laws faithfully executed implies that
the President has the power—the executive power—to see the laws faithfully executed.”
(emphasis added)); Brett M. Kavanaugh, Our Anchor for 225 Years and Counting: The
Enduring Significance of the Precise Text of the Constitution, 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1907,
1911 (2014) (“To be sure, the President has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
Given this duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, the Constitution’s
history and tradition, the Court is hard pressed, at this early stage of the litigation, to see
how the Government can suggest that the Constitution confers upon the Executive the
1231(a)(2). See Kendall, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) at 612–13 (“It was urged at the bar, that the
postmaster general was alone subject to the direction and control of the President, with
respect to the execution of the duty imposed upon him by this law, and this right of the
President is claimed, as growing out of the obligation imposed upon him by the
constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This is a doctrine that
cannot receive the sanction of this court. It would be vesting in the President a dispensing
power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution . . . . To
contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed,
implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and
96
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 97 of 160
entirely inadmissible.” (emphasis added)); Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, 177–78
(1804) (stating that, because the President has the “high duty . . . to ‘take care that the laws
commands where Congress has “prescribed . . . the manner in which [the] law shall be
carried into execution”); Smith, 27 F. Cas. at 1230 (“The president of the United States
cannot control the statute, nor dispense with its execution, and still less can he authorize a
person to do what the law forbids. If he could, it would render the execution of the laws
dependent on his will and pleasure; which is a doctrine that has not been set up, and will
not meet with any supporters in our government.” (emphasis added)); see also Off. of Pers.
Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 435, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 2477, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) (White,
J., concurring) (“The Executive Branch does not have the dispensing power on its own[.]”
(emphasis added) (citing Kendall, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) at 613)); United States v. Midwest Oil Co.,
236 U.S. 459, 505, 35 S.Ct. 309, 325, 59 L.Ed. 673 (1915) (Day, J., dissenting) (“The
Constitution does not confer upon [the President] any power to enact laws or
to suspend or repeal such as the Congress enacts.” (citing Kendall, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) at
613)); McConnell, supra, at 119 (“The Dispensing Power must not be confused with the
person or class of persons for actions in violation of the law does not give them the legal
right to violate the law.”); Paulsen, Calabresi, McConnell & Bray, supra, at 317; Joseph
Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 316 (Quid Pro Brooks 2013)
(1833) (“[T]he duty imposed upon [the President] to take care, that the laws be faithfully
executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will ‘preserve,
97
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 98 of 160
protect, and defend the constitution.’ The great object of the executive department is to
accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it
will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the
protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.”);
Kavanaugh, supra, at 1911 (“To be sure, the President has the duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. That certainly means that the Executive has to follow and
comply with laws regulating the executive branch—at least unless the President deems
the law unconstitutional, in which event the President can decline to follow the statute
until a final court order says otherwise. In other words, the Executive does have to follow
laws regulating the executive branch.” (emphasis added)); Steven G. Calabresi & Saikrishna
B. Prakash, The President’s Power To Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L.J. 541, 620 (1994) (noting
that the “Committee of Detail [may have] added the requirement that the President ‘take
care’ that the laws be ‘faithfully’ executed” out of a “desire to prevent the President from
declaring that his executive power granted him the ability not only to enforce federal law,
but also to suspend federal law or suspend the execution of it”); Delahunty & Yoo, supra,
Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative, 21 Hastings Const. L.Q. 865, 873–74 (1994) (“The duty
to execute the laws faithfully means that the President may not—whether by
statutes to which he or his predecessors have assented, or which may have been enacted
over his objection.” (footnotes omitted)); Henry P. Monaghan, The Protective Power of the
Presidency, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 18 n.80 (1993) (quoting William Rawle, A View of the
98
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 99 of 160
Constitution of the United States of America 148–49 (2d ed. 1829), for the proposition that the
Take Care Clause “declares what is [the President’s] duty” and that “[h]e is bound to
enforce” the laws (first alteration in original) (emphases added)); William P. Marshall &
Center47 (“At a minimum, the [Take Care] Clause means that the President may neither
breach federal law nor order his or her subordinates to do so, for defiance cannot be
considered faithful execution. The Constitution also incorporates the English bars on
dispensing or suspending the law, with some supposing that the Clause itself prohibits
Instead, the Executive—and thus, the Attorney General or the Secretary of DHS—
must exercise any discretion accorded to it by statute in the manner which Congress has
prescribed. See Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573 U.S. at 327, 134 S.Ct. at 2446; Vigil, 508 U.S. at
193, 113 S.Ct. at 2032 (“[A]n agency is not free simply to disregard statutory
resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes.”); Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832–34,
105 S.Ct. at 1656–57; see also Regents, ____ U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1926 (Thomas, J.,
Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988))).
47 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-
ii/clauses/348?aff_id=1000.
99
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 100 of 160
Accordingly, the Executive Branch, including its agencies, may not dispense with a clear
In sum, the Court finds that Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) impose mandatory
detention at specific points in time for certain aliens. The Executive Branch may neither
alter these statutory obligations through reprioritization nor dispense with them.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the detention of certain aliens subject to Sections
4. Zone of Interests
The States must next show that their injuries are within the “zones of interest” the
two laws were intended to protect. Congress has placed limits on how the Executive may
be sued for violating the law and who can do it. Congress, through the APA, has provided
a cause of action for those seeking redress against the federal government for violating
other federal laws. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. But Congress has limited the availability of
an APA cause of action to those who allege an injury that is “arguably” within the “zone
F.3d 553, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2019), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Collins v.
Yellen, ____ U.S. ____, 141 S.Ct. 1761 (2021); see also Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of
Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209, 224, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2210, 183 L.Ed.2d 211
(2012) (hereinafter “Match-E”) (quoting Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp,
397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)).
100
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 101 of 160
The zone of interests test is not “especially demanding” in the APA context.
Collins, 938 F.3d at 574 (quoting Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 130, 134 S.Ct. at 1389). Indeed, the
Supreme Court has “conspicuously included the word ‘arguably’ in the test to indicate
that the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff.” Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 130, 134 S.Ct. at
1389 (quoting Match-E, 567 U.S. at 225, 132 S.Ct. at 2210). The zone of interests test
inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be
assumed that’ Congress authorized that plaintiff to sue.” Collins, 938 F.3d at 574 (quoting
Importantly, the relevant statute in whose zone of interests the plaintiff’s injury
must reside “is to be determined not by reference to the overall purpose of the Act in
question,” but rather, “by reference to the particular provision of law upon which the
plaintiff relies.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 175–76, 117 S.Ct. at 1167. In other words, a court
must review those “substantive provisions” of law that the plaintiff relies on for “the
In this case, the States essentially bring three APA claims asserting that the
Government violated federal law: (1) the Memoranda are contrary to Sections 1226(c) and
1231(a)(2) of the INA, (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 94–107); (2) the policy set forth in the Memoranda
is arbitrary and capricious, (id. at ¶¶ 108–17); and (3) the Government was required but
failed to follow notice and comment procedures in issuing the Memoranda, (id. at ¶¶ 118–
121).
101
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 102 of 160
do not come within the relevant zone-of-interests” because “no entity can enforce § 1231”
because Subsection (h) bars any party from enforcing Section 1231 against the
Government.48 (Dkt. No. 42 at 35–36); see (6:21-cv-3, Dkt. No. 83 at 30–32); Texas I, ____
F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *22–23. For their part, the States briefly address
the Government’s suppositions, arguing they “fit within the zone of interests both
because [the Government is] wrong about Section 1231(h) and for the reasons this Court
has already explained” in Texas I. (Dkt. No. 51 at 29) (citing Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at
____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *23–29). The Court agrees with the States.
For starters, the Government cannot refute the States’ position that their injuries
are within the zones of interests of Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), particularly in light of
this Court’s discussions of Demore and Zadvydas concerning the development and
purpose of Sections 1226 and 1231. See supra I.A, II.B.1 & II.B.3. This discussion makes
clear that Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2)—and indeed the INA itself, see Texas DAPA, 809
F.3d at 163 & n.80—were enacted to protect and benefit the states, the citizens of this
country, and the legal immigrants of the United States. See supra I.A, II.B.1 & II.B.3. As
such, the injuries the States suffer due to the Memoranda, see supra II.A.1–4, fall within
the relevant statutes’ zones of interests. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 163 (finding that
102
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 103 of 160
Texas satisfies the zone-of-interest test as a result of the same injuries that give Texas
The Government, indeed, does not dispute that the States’ injuries fall within
Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2)’s zones of interests. Rather, the Government focuses its
attention on Section 1231(h), in essence arguing that because Subsection (h) bars parties
from enforcing Section 1231, any injury stemming from violations of the section does not
fall within the statute’s zone of interests. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 35–36). But, as explained
earlier, Section 1231(h) does not bar the States’ claims. See supra II.B.1; Texas I, ____ F.
Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *29–30 & n.42. Thus, the Government’s lone
contention fails. The Court finds that the States’ injuries fall within the zones of interest
Having determined the Court has jurisdiction over the action and nothing
precludes judicial review under the APA, the Court now turns to the merits of the States’
A. LEGAL STANDARD
Benisek v. Lamone, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 138 S.Ct. 1942, 1943, 201 L.Ed.2d 398 (2018)
treated as the exception rather than the rule.” Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe
Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). Thus, “[i]n each case, courts must balance the
competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or
103
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 104 of 160
withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24,
129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (quotation omitted). And in determining
whether injunctive relief is proper, “courts of equity should pay particular regard for the
that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable
harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the
threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will
not disserve the public interest.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). As
such, “[t]he party seeking such relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving each
of the four elements enumerated” in order for a preliminary injunction to be granted. Id.
Note, however, that “none of the four prerequisites has a fixed quantitative value.”
Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S. A., 518 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1975). “Rather, a sliding scale is
utilized, which takes into account the intensity of each in a given calculus.” Id. (citing Siff
v. State Democratic Exec. Comm., 500 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1974)). For instance, “a preliminary
injunction does not follow as a matter of course from a plaintiff’s showing” of the first
element, “a likelihood of success on the merits.” Benisek, ____ U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at
1943–44 (emphasis added). Thus, federal courts must consider whether the movant has
established the three other elements as well for a preliminary injunction to issue. Id. at
104
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 105 of 160
B. APPLICATION
As described above, the Court determined that “shall” in Sections 1226(c) and
1231(a)(2) means “must.” See supra II.B.3.a. This conclusion means that the Attorney
General must detain certain aliens subject to those sections. The Court also found that
both statutes mandate detention of certain aliens at specific points in time: for Section
1226(c), the Attorney General is required to detain certain aliens “when the alien is
released from custody,” while for Section 1231(a)(2), the Attorney General is obligated to
detain certain aliens “during the removal period.” The policy contained in the
detention of those individuals might occur. This guidance therefore is wholly contrary
to Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). Thus, the States have demonstrated a substantial
The States argue that the Government’s Memoranda establishing new guidelines
and priorities for the detention of certain aliens are arbitrary and capricious because they
“failed to consider important aspects of a problem.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 28). Specifically, the
States allege that the Memoranda: (1) “failed to consider the risks of recidivism among
criminal aliens who are not detained;” (2) “ignore the effects non-detention will have on
future removal efforts,” especially on the costs that delays in deportation often produce
105
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 106 of 160
and the rate of abscondment of released aliens; (3) “do not discuss the costs that [the new
guidance] will impose on [the] States;” (4) “did not consider more limited policies that
would have retained congressionally mandated detention of criminal aliens and those
with final orders of removal;” and (5) “do[] not explain Defendants’ choice[]”of
prioritizing the detention of aliens who have aggravated felonies over others who have
committed drug offenses and crimes of moral turpitude or those with final orders of
removal. (Id. at 27–29). The Government disagrees with the States’ contentions.
Countering the States point-by-point, the Government argues that it “considered the
relevant factors and reached a reasonable decision.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 42–47). Reviewing
these assertions, the Court finds the States have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
success in establishing that the policy set forth in the Memoranda is arbitrary and
The APA prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). With that in
decisionmaking.” Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 374, 118 S.Ct.
818, 826, 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998) (internal quotation omitted). This necessarily means that
“[n]ot only must an agency’s decreed result be within the scope of its lawful authority,
but the process by which it reaches that result must be logical and rational.” Id. (emphasis
added). More specifically, “the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
106
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 107 of 160
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck
Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 245–46, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962))
(emphasis added).
reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the
relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Marsh v. Or. Nat.
Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1861, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (internal
quotations omitted). “Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the
agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely
failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its
decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it
could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2867. If a court finds that an administrative agency failed
to engage in reasoned decision-making, the reviewing court “shall hold unlawful and set
aside” such “agency action, findings, and conclusions” as arbitrary and capricious. 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
“Because the central focus of the arbitrary and capricious standard is on the
rationality of the agency’s ‘decisionmaking,’ rather than its actual decision, ‘[i]t is well-
established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by
the agency itself.’” United States v. Garner, 767 F.2d 104, 116–17 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. at 2870). As such, “the grounds upon which an
administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its
107
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 108 of 160
action was based.” 49 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626
(1943). The administrative record need only “indicate[] the determinative reason for the
final action taken,” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 36 L.Ed.2d 106
(1973), and courts may “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path
may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419
Finally, the Court is mindful that the arbitrary and capricious standard is “highly
deferential.” Garner, 767 F.2d at 116. Courts must “accord the agency’s decision a
presumption of regularity” and “are prohibited from substituting [the courts’] judgment
for that of the agency.” Id. (citation omitted). But “while the arbitrary and capricious
49 In a status conference with the Parties on July 2, 2021, the Court asked whether the
Government intended to file the administrative record for review. The Government declined
stating that it was unnecessary at this stage of the litigation. (July 2, 2021, Status Conference,
10:00–10:15 A.M.). For their part, the States did not oppose the Government’s position, and,
instead, told the Court that it could dispose of the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction
without the full administrative record in hand. Id. In effect, the Parties agreed that the full
administrative record is not necessary for the Court to rule on the arbitrary and capricious claim
at this time.
“A court is ordinarily limited to evaluating the agency’s contemporaneous explanation in
light of the existing administrative record.” Dep’t of Com., ____ U.S. at ____, 139 S.Ct. at 2556
(citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197,
55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978)). As such, the Court will limit its inquiry to the findings, conclusions, and
explanations provided in the February 18 Memorandum for its review. In addition, because the
Court is ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court merely needs to determine “if
there is a substantial likelihood that” the States “will prevail on the merits” of their arbitrary and
capricious claim. Prichard, 812 F.2d at 993. It follows, therefore, that the disposition of the
arbitrary and capricious claim, at this stage, is not final. Indeed, for at least one other district
court, the lack of an administrative record was not a barrier for that court to rule on an arbitrary
and capricious claim at this stage. See Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Perez, No. 5:16-CV-00066-C, 2016
WL 3766121, at *23 & n.8, 28–29 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016).
108
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 109 of 160
the following, the Memoranda fail to indicate that the Government engaged in reasoned
At their core, the Memoranda reprioritize certain classes of aliens for immigration
enforcement and removal priorities pursuant to the January 20 Memorandum.50 See (Dkt.
No. 19-2 at 5). As discussed above, if a criminal illegal alien falls under a category deemed
other hand, if the criminal illegal alien does not fall under any of the categories, an
enforcement or removal action “will require preapproval.” (Id. at 7). The Memorandum
states that “ICE operates in an environment of limited resources,” and thus, “ICE has
always prioritized, and necessarily must prioritize, certain enforcement and removal
actions over others.” (Id. at 3). In addition to “resource constraints,” “several other
These factors include “ongoing litigation in various fora; the health and safety of the ICE
workforce and those in its custody, particularly during the current COVID-19 pandemic;
the responsibility to ensure that eligible noncitizens are able to pursue relief from removal
under the immigration laws; and the requirements of, and relationships with, sovereign
50 To the extent the January 20 Memorandum’s 100-day pause on removals and that
Memorandum’s corresponding administrative record are implicated in this action, the Court
adopts its reasoning in Texas I and finds that the Government failed to engage in reasoned
decision-making. ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *38–42. Thus, the Court adopts
and incorporates by reference its prior decision that the January 20 Memorandum’s 100-day
pause is arbitrary and capricious.
109
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 110 of 160
nations, whose laws and expectations can place additional constraints on ICE’s ability to
execute final orders of removal.” (Id.). Given these considerations, the Memorandum
states that the Government “must exercise its well-established prosecutorial discretion
and prioritize its limited resources to most effectively achieve that mission.” (Id. at 4).
factors that make the Government’s “mission particularly complex” in this field. But the
Memorandum itself does not directly state whether these factors were considered while
the Government was actually formulating the guidance in question. Assuming they were
considered and were the bases for the new guidance, see Pitts, 411 U.S. at 143, 93 S.Ct. at
1244, the February 18 Memorandum (along with its predecessor, the January 20
Memorandum does not disclose how or why any of these enumerated factual
short, both Memoranda fail to establish any rational connection or logical link between
any of these factors and the new guidance. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866.
First, the February 18 Memorandum does not offer even a brief explanation of how
promulgating the new guidance. It is simply a vague and conclusory statement. Did the
Government mean to say that Texas I or other pending cases were considered when
crafting the new guidance? If so, how did the disposition of Texas I or other cases affect
110
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 111 of 160
Second, the Government’s stated responsibility and desire to ensure that eligible
aliens may be afforded relief from removal is commendable but likewise lacks any
rational connection with the new guidance. The new guidance reprioritizes the detention
and deportation of criminal illegal aliens. But the February 18 Memorandum does not
explain how or why prioritizing, for instance, the detention or deportation of “border
security risks” (aliens who entered the country on or after November 1, 2020) over aliens
who have drug offenses or crimes of moral turpitude would ensure that eligible
noncitizens will obtain relief in their own removal proceedings. There does not seem to
be any connection between reprioritizing the detention and removal of certain aliens to
whether other aliens may be afforded legally authorized relief from deportation. The
Third, although the Court acknowledges as a general matter that interactions and
relationships with other sovereign nations “may place constraints” on the Government’s
ability to “execute final orders of removal,” see (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 4), there is no rational
link between any of these factual constraints to the reprioritization scheme the
make it more inefficient to deport aliens with drug offenses over so-called “national
security risks” or “border security risks”? If so, what are the facts that justify such
conclusions? Those questions are also unanswered. Like the considerations described
above, the Memorandum does not state any facts or findings with respect to why
111
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 112 of 160
Lastly, the Government’s written concern for the health and safety of ICE workers
in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic is not rationally relevant to the new guidance.
Will COVID-19 infections among the ICE workforce be substantially reduced if the
Government prioritizes the deportation of one category of criminal illegal aliens over
another? How does reprioritization alleviate those health concerns, if any? On these
The Court further notes that, out of all these considerations, the cursory use of the
Throughout the last year, institutions, including federal and state governments, have
e.g., Chrysafis v. Marks, ____ U.S. ____, 2021 WL 3560766 (U.S. Aug. 12, 2021) (enjoining
the part of New York’s COVID Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act that
the grounds that “no man can be a judge in his own case” (quoting In re Murchison, 349
U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955))); Tandon v. Newsom, ____ U.S. ____, 141
S.Ct. 1294, 209 L.Ed.2d 355 (2021) (per curiam) (enjoining California officials from
other policies treated comparable secular activities that did not pose a lesser risk of
transmission more favorably); Roman Cath. Diocese v. Cuomo, ____ U.S. ____, 141 S.Ct. 63,
208 L.Ed.2d 206 (2020) (per curiam) (enjoining the Governor of New York from enforcing
occupancy limits on religious services in response to COVID-19 that would have violated
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment); Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser,
112
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 113 of 160
496 F. Supp. 3d 284, 289 (D.D.C. 2020) (finding that the District’s COVID-19-related
prohibition of religious gatherings of more than 100 people, even those with appropriate
Religious Freedom Restoration Act). And now the Government has added immigration
to the mix.
The Government used the pandemic to reason that the January 20 Memorandum’s
out of reasoned decision-making. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669,
at *40. But, as the Court noted in Texas I, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), on October 13, 2020,
authorized the CDC Director “to suspend the right to introduce persons into the United
States” because of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021
WL 2096669, at *40 & n.46 (citing CDC, Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons
(updated Oct. 2020)). The relevant CDC Order “applies to persons traveling from Canada
or Mexico (regardless of their country of origin) who would otherwise be introduced into
a congregate setting in a land or coastal Port of Entry (POE) or Border Patrol station at or
near the United States borders with Canada or Mexico, subject to [certain] exceptions.”
Id. Considering the CDC Order, the Government’s new guidance is puzzling. The new
aliens—in the Nation’s communities. But, per the CDC Order, the COVID-19 pandemic
would likely justify a different course of action. Throughout this time, the Government
113
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 114 of 160
has not introduced any further papers or discussed anything in the February 18
that speak to the safety of introducing aliens into the country and its communities. The
February 18 Memorandum likewise does not grapple with or otherwise explain how the
new guidelines are consistent with these CDC policies. Thus, like in Texas I, the
connected to the new guidance, it also “runs counter to the evidence before the agency.”
See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2867. In other words, the Government cannot
especially when these choices run afoul of another agency’s published health directives.51
Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 55, 132 S.Ct. 476, 485, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011) (internal quotation
omitted) (emphasis added). In this case, the factors apparently considered in the
February 18 Memorandum and its predecessor, the January 20 Memorandum, are, after
a thorough review, arbitrary and irrelevant to the new guidance. The link between the
new guidance and the factors enumerated are so contradictory to the evidence and
“implausible” that the States’ challenge cannot be said to be differing policy preferences
114
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 115 of 160
or views. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1811,
173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009) (explaining that when an agency’s “new policy rests upon factual
findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy[,] or when its prior policy
has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account, [i]t would be
arbitrary or capricious to ignore such matters,” and “[i]n such cases it is not that further
justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned
explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were
engendered by the prior policy” (internal citation omitted)); State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103
S.Ct. at 2867 (“Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency
has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to
consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that
runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be
ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court
should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies: ‘We may not supply a reasoned
basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.’” (quoting Chenery, 332
U.S. at 196, 67 S.Ct. at 1577)); Huawei Techs. USA, Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 2 F.4th
421, 452 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, when considering an agency’s cost-benefit
analysis in the scope of the arbitrary and capricious standard, the Court’s “job ‘is not to
undertake [its] own economic study, but to determine whether the [agency] ‘has
established in the record a reasonable basis for its decision’” (quoting Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n
v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 251 (5th Cir. 1989))); Sierra Club v. EPA, 939 F.3d 649, 664 (5th Cir.
2019) (“The agency must ‘articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a
115
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 116 of 160
rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” (quoting State Farm,
463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866)); Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1013 (5th Cir.
2019) (noting the Court must “ensure that the agency examined the relevant data and
articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, and assess whether the agency’s
decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors” (quoting 10 Ring Precision,
Inc. v. Jones, 722 F.3d 711, 723 (5th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up)). Thus, the Court finds that the
What’s more, while the Government argues it actually did consider certain
relevant factors in crafting the new guidelines (thus engaging in reasoned decision-
making), the Court finds that the Government’s briefs actually establish that it did not
consider those factors. To begin with, “[p]ost hoc rationalizations offered by the
Government’s counsel are irrelevant.” Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Dep’t
of Health & Hum. Servs., 985 F.3d 472, 475 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50,
103 S.Ct. [at 2870]). Therefore, this Court finds it inappropriate to consider each of the
Government’s arguments in their briefing that were not included in the Memoranda.
Even assuming they were relevant, however, the Government’s in-brief explanations are
meritless.
First, the Government states that it considered the prospect of recidivism when
crafting the new guidance found in the February 18 Memorandum. (Dkt. No. 42 at 44).
Specifically, the Government alleges that “DHS weighed the threat to public safety from
support, the Government cites to passages from the February 18 Memorandum that,
116
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 117 of 160
according to the Government, (a) “focused on the degree of threat to public safety” the
determinations” for enforcement and removal, to “consider public interest factors, which
include the risk of recidivism.” See (Id. at 44). These points miss the mark entirely.
With respect to the first, the Government’s decision to “focus[] on the degree of
threat to public safety” establishes that the Government either did not consider the risk
of recidivism or created a policy contrary to the evidence before it. In their claim, the
States argue that, in choosing which policy to pursue, the Government did not consider
the risks of recidivism of all criminal aliens. See (Dkt. No. 18 at 44). Indeed, the Supreme
Court has stated that “deportable criminal aliens who remained in the United States”—
notably not a certain subset or category of such aliens—“often committed more crimes
before being removed.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 518, 123 S.Ct. at 1715 (emphasis added); see
also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 713–714, 121 S.Ct. at 2511 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (discussing
rates of recidivism for released criminal aliens and their threat to public safety, noting the
“high recidivism rates for released aliens”). Despite the Supreme Court’s recognition of
the risks deportable criminal aliens pose, the February 18 Memorandum requires
prioritization of criminal aliens who both pose a threat to public safety and have had a
prior aggravated felony conviction or criminal gang affiliation. See (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 5–
6). The States correctly point out that by prioritizing certain aliens, the Memorandum
“omit[s] aliens” who are solely “threats to public safety,” in other words, potential
recidivists. (Dkt. No. 51 at 14). Nothing in the February 18 Memorandum explains that
117
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 118 of 160
criminal illegal aliens who are only “threats to public safety” are at a much lower risk of
recidivism compared to criminal aliens who have had prior felonies or criminal gang
convictions. Put differently, the new guidelines do not establish that the Government
criminal illegal aliens free to recidivate—to harm the public. And crucially, the
Government has not rebutted or clarified the well-established concept that all criminal
illegal aliens or “deportable aliens pose high risks of recidivism.” See Demore, 538 U.S. at
518, 123 S.Ct. at 1715. Instead, the February 18 Memorandum, without any support or
evidence, implements new guidelines stemming from an idea that it is merely some
criminal illegal aliens—those with aggravated felonies and criminal gang affiliations—
who have a much higher risk of recidivism. Such a conclusion is without any foundation
in the record and shows that the Government either failed to consider recidivism as a
the evidence before it. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2867.
“could” include the risk of recidivism. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 44). Arbitrary and capricious
review calls for the Court to examine the rationality of agency decision-making and not
the actual decision. Garner, 767 F.2d 104 at 116. Even if the new guidelines give some
leeway to immigration officers to consider “public interest factors,” this does not
establish that the Government considered the risk of recidivism when crafting the new
guidelines. As the Government frankly admits, the Memoranda “do not use the term
118
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 119 of 160
‘recidivism’” anywhere. (Dkt. No. 42 at 44). The February 18 Memorandum is, thus,
devoid of any references to recidivism or other statements tending to show that the risk
of recidivism that criminal illegal aliens pose was considered when drafting the new
policy.
Second, the Government asserts that it has limited resources and must prioritize
certain enforcement and removal actions under Section 1226(c). (Id. at 45). But, as the
States point out, this contention “dodges the key issue” of whether the Government
actually considered the effects of the new guidelines to costs of delaying deportations
and the overall rate of abscondment of criminal illegal aliens. (Dkt. No. 51 at 15); (Dkt.
No. 18 at 27–28). The costs of the non-detainment of criminal aliens are substantial. For
instance, in the past, “when the vast majority of deportable criminal aliens were not
detained during their deportation proceedings, many filed frivolous appeals in order to
delay their deportation.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 530 n.14, 123 S.Ct. at 1721 n.14. Even “[c]ourt
ordered release” itself “cannot help but encourage dilatory and obstructive tactics by
aliens.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 713, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). “An alien
ordered deported also has less incentive to cooperate or to facilitate expeditious removal
when he has been released, even on a supervised basis, than does an alien held at an [ICE]
detention facility.” Id. And following this line, a Senate Report from 1995 noted that
“[d]elays” in deportation “can earn criminal aliens more than work permits and wages—
if they delay long enough they may even obtain U.S. citizenship.” S. Rep. No. 104–48, at
2 (1995). The costs from non-detainment rival the costs of abscondment. The same Senate
Report found that “[o]ver 20 percent of nondetained criminal aliens fail to appear for
119
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 120 of 160
deportation proceedings.” Id. This Court, as well, found the rate of abscondment to be
substantial even for aliens who have been “thoroughly vetted” in order for them to be
WL 2096669, at *19. Even in light of these effects and costs, the February 18 Memorandum
is silent on whether these were considered while crafting the new guidelines. The Court,
therefore, finds that the Government failed to consider this relevant factor.
Third, the Government argues that, with regard to the additional costs the States
will incur, “the States are wrong to argue that DHS was required to expressly evaluate
the costs to each State,” and, regardless, the Government “did consider how the Priority
Framework would impact public safety . . . which should reduce the costs from crime to
the States.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 45–46). Rephrased, the Government argues that state costs
and expenses are not relevant factors, but, nevertheless, the February 18 Memorandum
indirectly considered them since it factored in the new guidelines’ impact to public safety.
State costs and expenses are, indeed, relevant factors. That was the case in Texas
I, see ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *41, and the Government takes issue
with the Court’s prior holding, see (Dkt. No. 42 at 46 & n.16). Thus, to be clear, a more
relevant agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2867. The Supreme Court has noted that immigration
“ha[s] a discernable impact on traditional state concerns,” owing to the fact that
120
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 121 of 160
“unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the
State’s ability to provide some important service.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 228, n.23, 102 S.Ct.
at 2400, n.23 (citing DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–56, 96 S.Ct. 933, 935–36, 47 L.Ed.2d
43 (1976)). Indeed, immigration policy is important to the states since they “bear[] many
of the consequences of unlawful immigration.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 397, 132 S.Ct. at 2500.
Obviously, as Plyler noted, some of those problematic consequences stem from a newly
promulgated immigration policy’s effect on the state’s economy and its services; in other
words, state costs and expenses. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 153 (holding that Texas had
standing to challenge the federal government’s DAPA policy in part because the policy
“would have a major effect on the states’ fiscs, causing millions of dollars of losses in
Texas alone” and “would enable beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, and many
would do so, resulting in Texas’s injury”). In Regents, for instance, the Supreme Court
held that the federal government’s recission of its DACA policy was arbitrary and
capricious in part because the government failed to consider the loss of state and local tax
revenue stemming from the policy’s rescission. ____ U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1914. Along
with a few other concerns, the Supreme Court characterized the loss of local and state tax
Supreme Court found that the federal government needed to consider that factor—along
with many others—and weigh them all together to ultimately decide whether to retain
DACA or not. Id. As in this case, “[m]aking that difficult decision was the agency’s job,
121
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 122 of 160
Further, the Supreme Court has indicated that, in the context of immigration
system.” Judulang, 565 U.S. at 55, 132 S.Ct. at 485. One broad purpose of immigration
law and policy is to minimize the costs and expenses related to the presence of illegal
aliens in the country. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 530 n.14, 123 S.Ct. at 1721 n.14 (noting that
“prior to the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c),” a vast majority of deportable criminal aliens
were free during their deportation proceedings and many filed frivolous appeals to delay
deportation); Hernandez-Avalos v. INS, 50 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(i) (1986) was enacted “to ease financial burdens on federal, state and local prisons
979 F.2d 1104, 1109 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that the main purpose of Section 1252(i) was to
“reduc[e] prison overcrowding and cost to the government”); Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d
1159, 1165 (6th Cir. 1990) (explaining that Section 1252(i) was enacted because there was
a concern in Congress with prison overcrowding in “local and State jails”). While the
Government is correct that immigration policy “affect[s] trade, investment, tourism, and
diplomatic relations,” among other things, see (Dkt. No. 42 at 46, n.16) and Arizona, 567
U.S. 387 at 395, 132 S.Ct. at 2498, that list of considerations is not exhaustive. Therefore,
the Court finds the Government’s argument that it need not consider the States’ costs and
Likewise, the Court finds that the Memoranda did not consider the States’ costs
and expenses even though, according to the Government, DHS considered the new
122
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 123 of 160
guidelines’ impact to public safety. In fact, the Memoranda did not consider or failed to
substantially consider the new guidelines’ effects on public safety. Indeed, both
deportation of some criminal illegal aliens, while effectively delaying the detention or
deportation of and releasing so many other criminal illegal aliens, positively impact
public safety. Moreover, the Memoranda provide no indication that any relevant data or
facts were considered in ultimately concluding that the public will be safer by releasing
more criminal illegal aliens into communities from detention while fewer are detained or
deported. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866 (explaining that an agency “must
how that consideration connects with concerns regarding state costs and expenses. The
Government in its brief argues that, by focusing its “limited resources” on enforcement
actions against “the most significant threats to public safety,” the Memoranda “should
reduce the costs from crime to the States.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 46). Leaving aside that the new
guidelines practically provide for the non-detention of many criminal illegal aliens who
are not within the ambit of any of the prioritized categories, the Government’s assertion
still fails. “[T]he grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those
upon which the record discloses that its action was based.” Chenery, 318 U.S. at 87, 63
S.Ct. at 459. And the Memoranda bear no thought or indication as to whether the new
123
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 124 of 160
Next, the Government argues that, contrary to the States’ allegations, DHS “need
not ‘consider all policy alternatives in reaching [its] decision.’” (Dkt. No. 42 at 46) (citing
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 51, 103 S.Ct. at 2870). Instead, the Government states that “it need
only ‘consider the alternative[s] that are within the ambit of the existing [policy].’” (Id.)
(quoting Regents, ____ U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1913). In this case, per the Government,
“the States fail to identify a single policy alternative” that would be “within the ambit of
existing policy,” or would otherwise be “obvious,” “significant and viable.” (Id.) (citing
Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. Jones, 716 F.3d 200, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). The Court
The States do propose that, instead of the prioritization scheme found in the
would have retained congressionally mandated detention of criminal aliens and aliens
with final orders of removal.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 28). The foregoing is simply asking that
the Government follow the law.52 Of course, such policies are “within the ambit of
existing policy.” After all, the February 18 Memorandum states that its reprioritization
scheme “covers enforcement actions, custody decisions, the execution of final orders of
removal, financial expenditures, and strategic planning,” (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 2), and
congressional statutes mandating the detention of aliens go to the explicit focus of the
52 Not only that, the States’ proposed limited policies are “obvious,” “significant,” and
“viable” to this Court. See Jones, 716 F.3d at 215. It is incredibly obvious that a “reprioritization
policy” that still effectuates and follows the law on detention and removals is more limited than
the new guidelines. And surely, following laws should be significantly viable for the Executive
Branch given it is required by the Constitution to enforce such laws. U.S. Const. art. II, §§ 1, 3.
124
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 125 of 160
Memorandum. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 51, 103 S.Ct. at 2871. But despite all this, the
February 18 Memorandum never considered the limited policies the States proposed. It
failed to discuss how a policy enabling the Government to detain all criminal illegal aliens
subject to congressional mandates compares with the opted-for guidelines. It did not
even state whether the new guidelines even considered any other policy. In short, the
Government did not grapple with or provide any alternatives when it was required to do
so. See Regents, ____ U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1913 (“State Farm teaches that when an
agency rescinds a prior policy its reasoned analysis must consider the ‘alternative[s]’ that
are ‘within the ambit of the existing [policy].’” (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 51, 103 S.Ct.
2856) (emphasis added)). “That omission alone” makes the new guidelines arbitrary and
Lastly, the States argue that the February 18 Memorandum failed to rationally
explain why criminal illegal aliens who have committed aggravated felonies or who are
affiliated with criminal gangs are prioritized over other criminal illegal aliens and aliens
with final orders of removal. (Dkt. No. 18 at 29). The Government responds that the
(Dkt. No. 42 at 43–44). As the Government writes, “the former category presumptively
presents a more significant threat to public safety.” (Id.). In mandating the detention of
criminal aliens convicted of serious drug offenses, crimes of moral turpitude, and some
other specified offenses, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), as well as aliens with final orders of
removal during the removal period, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), Congress did not
125
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 126 of 160
These laws plainly mandate the detention of all the deportable criminal aliens subject to
the relevant statutes. The new guidelines directly go against these congressional
mandates, opting instead to prioritize certain criminal illegal aliens’ detention and
deportation over others because of an assertion that such aliens “presumptively present[]
a more significant threat to public safety” than “one million noncitizens with final orders
for drug offenses or crimes of moral turpitude. But the February 18 Memorandum does
not ground this otherwise unsupported assertion. It does not even explain or state how
it considered, compared, and ultimately concluded that criminal illegal aliens of a certain
category must be prioritized over others. Despite Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2),
nowhere in the February 18 Memorandum do the new guidelines even contemplate the
prioritization of these “other” criminal illegal aliens. As the States correctly surmise,
“[t]he very reason the February 18 Memorandum provides for prioritizing aggravated
felonies also supports prioritizing drug offenses, crimes of moral turpitude, and final
orders of removal.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 29). Without more explanation grounded on relevant
data and facts, it is unknown why the priorities were implemented in that way. The new
decision-making.
In sum, the Government’s failure to rationally explain and connect the basis for
the new guidance, along with the Government’s failure to consider certain relevant
factors and alternative policies, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that the
reprioritization is an arbitrary and capricious policy. As the above discussion shows, the
126
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 127 of 160
APA. The Court therefore finds that the States have established a substantial likelihood
The States’ next claim is similar to one Texas raised in Texas I. See Texas I, ____ F.
Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *42–47. In Texas I, this Court enjoined Section C of
the January 20 Memorandum, in part, because Section C did not undergo notice and
comment as required by the APA. See id. In this case, the States ask this Court to enjoin
Section B of the January 20 Memorandum and the February 18 Memorandum for the
same reason. The States argue that “[t]he January 20 and February 18 Memoranda are
subject to notice and comment rulemaking because they are substantive or legislative
rules.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 30). The Government disagrees, raising nearly identical arguments
to those it raised in Texas I. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 47). Namely, the Government contends
that the Memoranda are exempt from the APA’s notice and comment requirement as
“general statement[s] of policy” or, alternatively, as “procedural rules.” (Id.). For the
following reasons, the Court disagrees with the Government’s characterizations of the
Memoranda and finds that the States have a substantial likelihood of success on the
127
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 128 of 160
As in Texas I, no Party disputes that the Memoranda are rules of some kind and,
therefore, that the rulemaking provisions of the APA apply.53 See (Dkt. No. 18); (Dkt. No.
42); see also ___ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *42. Nor does any Party contend
that the Memoranda underwent any notice and comment. (Id.). The question, then, is
whether the Memoranda are the type of rules that should have undergone notice and
The Court begins with an overview of the APA’s notice and comment requirement
and the exceptions thereto. The APA requires rules to undergo notice and comment
unless they are exempt. See 5 U.S.C. § 553.54 Section 553 sets forth two such categories of
exemptions to the notice and comment requirement, one of which is relevant to this case.
Id. § 553(b). That category exempts “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from notice and comment. Id.
§ 553(b)(A) (emphases added). Thus, if an agency proposes a rule that is either a general
128
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 129 of 160
statement of policy or a procedural rule, the agency is not required to conduct notice and
The Fifth Circuit has made clear that exemptions to the notice and comment
requirement “must be narrowly construed.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171. A narrow
reading of the exemptions safeguards the vital interests notice and comment is intended
to protect. See Dep’t of Lab. v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1153 n.17 (5th Cir. 1984)
(“Section 553 was enacted to give the public an opportunity to participate in the rule-
making process. It also enables the agency promulgating the rule to educate itself before
establishing rules and procedures which have a substantial impact on those who are
regulated.” (quotations omitted)). Indeed, notice and comment ensures that those
affected by a proposed rule have a voice in the rule-making process and assist the agency
in crafting rules that better account for the costs and benefits of agency action. See id. at
1153. But see id. (“Inevitably, in determining whether the APA requires notice and
comment rulemaking, the interests of agency efficiency and public input are in tension.”).
APA’s procedural strictures, the Supreme Court has recognized that states like Louisiana
and Texas offer important perspectives on illegal immigration issues. See Arizona, 567
U.S. at 397, 132 S.Ct. at 2500 (“The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish
the importance of immigration policy to the States.”); see also Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 163.
States can assist an agency in crafting rules addressing important immigration issues.
Mindful of the importance of notice and comment in this context, the Court now
129
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 130 of 160
exempt from the notice and comment requirement as either a general statement of policy
or as a procedural rule.
The Court first considers whether the Memoranda are general statements of
policy. If so, notice and comment is not required. Prof’ls & Patients for Customized Care v.
Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1995); see also 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). “In analyzing
starting point is the agency’s characterization of the rule.” Shalala, at 596. As in Texas I,
the Court would likely be convinced that the Memoranda are general statements of policy
if it could rely on the Government’s characterization of the Memoranda alone. See Texas
I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *43. Both the Government in its brief and
the Memoranda themselves declare that the Memoranda are mere statements of policy.
(Dkt. No. 42 at 47–49); (Dkt. No. 19-1); (Dkt. No. 19-2). Indeed, the January 20
guidance[.]” (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 2) (emphasis added). The January 20 Memorandum also
states that the “guidelines and priorities” contained therein “are not intended to, do not,
and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
that it “establishes interim guidance[.]” (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 2) (emphasis added). The
February 18 Memorandum goes on to say that “[t]hese guidelines and priorities are not
intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive
130
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 131 of 160
Indeed, “[a]gencies have never been able to avoid notice and comment simply by
mislabeling their substantive pronouncements. On the contrary, courts have long looked
to the contents of the agency’s action, not the agency’s self-serving label, when deciding
____ U.S. ____, ____, 139 S.Ct. 1804, 1812, 204 L.Ed.2d 139 (2019) (emphasis in original).
The Fifth Circuit, too, cautions courts to be “mindful but suspicious of the agency’s own
characterization.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171 (quotation omitted). The Fifth Circuit
therefore demands more of a district court than simply taking an agency at its word when
rule requiring notice and comment. See Shalala, 56 F.3d at 596 (“The label that the
particular agency puts upon its given exercise of administrative power is not, for [this
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit instructs district courts to also “evaluate two criteria
to distinguish policy statements from substantive rules: whether the rule (1) impose[s]
any rights and obligations and (2) genuinely leaves the agency and its decision-makers
free to exercise discretion.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171 (quotation omitted).55 The Fifth
55 The Fifth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have emphasized that “unless a pronouncement
acts prospectively, it is a binding norm. Thus . . . a statement of policy may not have a present
effect[.]” Shalala, 56 F.3d at 595; Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
(continue)
131
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 132 of 160
Circuit has acknowledged that “[t]here is some overlap in the analysis of those prongs
because if a statement denies the decisionmaker discretion in the area of its coverage . . .
then the statement is binding and creates rights or obligations.” Id. (cleaned up).
Moreover, these “criteria” are merely intended to guide a court in “fathom[ing] the
interpretative/legislative distinction.” Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943, 946
(D.C. Cir. 1987). In other words, “[t]hese factors are not treated like different elements of
a cause of action, both of which must be proved; but instead a matter of judgment is
circumscribe administrative choice.” Texas, 328 F. Supp. at 730 (citing Am. Bus Ass’n v.
United States, 627 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).56 The Court now weighs these criteria
The Court first considers whether the Memoranda impose any rights or
obligations. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171. In doing so, the Court is mindful that “a
substantive rule—or a legislative-type rule, is one that affects individual rights and
Here, the February 18 Memorandum states that “[t]his interim guidance is effective immediately.”
(Dkt. No. 19-2 at 2) (emphasis added).
The Fifth Circuit cautions, however, that the “binding effect, not the timing, . . . is the
essence of criterion one.” Shalala, 56 F.3d at 595 (emphasis added). Thus, the “[m]ere
pronouncements of what the agency intends, whether for the present or for the future, which do
not have a binding effect, are properly classified as interpretative rules.” Cmty. Nutrition Inst.,
818 F.2d at 946 n.4. This caveat is of no consequence here because the Court finds that the
Memoranda have a binding effect due to their effect on the rights and obligations described.
56 In describing the criteria for determining whether a rule is a general statement of policy
or a substantive rule requiring notice and comment, the Fifth Circuit has relied on the D.C.
Circuit. See Shalala, 56 F.3d at 595 nn.15–16 (citing Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 818 F.2d at 943, and Am.
Bus Ass’n, 627 F.2d at 529).
132
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 133 of 160
obligations.” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1718, 60 L.Ed.2d 208
(1979) (citation and quotation omitted) (cleaned up). “This characteristic is an important
touchstone for distinguishing those rules that may be ‘binding’ or have the ‘force of law.’”
At the outset, it is worth noting that the Court has extensively described how the
Memoranda affect rights and obligations in its analysis on whether the Memoranda
constitute final agency action. See supra II.B.2. As a review, the Memoranda affect rights
and obligations in at least three ways. First, the February 18 Memorandum commands
that DHS abdicate its obligations under Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) to detain all aliens
within the ambit of those provisions and that the detention occur at or for a specified time.
Second, the Memoranda also create financial obligations for Texas that would not
have existed but for the Memoranda. Based on the record, Texas will be required by law
to bear some of the cost of providing Emergency Medicaid to eligible aliens who fall
within the ambit of Sections 1226(c) or 1231(a)(2). See supra II.B.2.b. The legal obligation
to provide these aliens with these services would not exist if deprioritized aliens were
taken into federal custody at the time of their release from state custody as mandated by
Section 1226(c), or if they were detained during the removal period, as required by
Section 1231(a)(2).
Finally, as described above, the Memoranda affect the rights of some aliens already
in detention. See supra II.B.2.b. As another court has already found, the Memoranda
make a nonpriority alien’s removal “unlikely to be imminent.” See Hussein S.M., 2021
133
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 134 of 160
WL 1986125, at *3. This status, in turn, entitles certain aliens to release from detention.
See id.; see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. at 2505. That is an effect on rights.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Memoranda affect the rights and
obligations of those within the Memoranda’s regulatory sphere—DHS, the states, and
certain aliens. This consideration weighs against finding that the Memoranda are general
statements of policy.
Next, the Court considers whether the Memoranda give the agency and its
do not.
the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a
discretionary power.” Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 197, 113 S.Ct. at 2034 (quotations omitted). The
Fifth Circuit has described the inquiry for determining whether a rule gives an agency
policy:
Shalala, 56 F.3d at 596–97 (citing Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 716 F.2d 1369, 1377
(11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 927, 104 S.Ct. 1707, 80 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984)). Applying
134
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 135 of 160
this inquiry to the Memoranda, the Court is of the opinion that the amount of discretion
enforcement actions for some classes of aliens to the exclusion of others. The Memoranda
state explicitly that “[e]nforcement and removal actions [against aliens who fall within]
the [priority groups] described . . . are presumed to be a justified allocation of ICE’s limited
resources.” See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 4–6) (alterations added) (emphasis added). And
nonprioritized aliens “may also be justified” and that “the interim priorities do not
removal actions that do not meet the above criteria for presumed priority cases will require
preapproval from the [Field Office Director (FOD)] or [Special Agent in Charge (SAC)].”
(Id. at 7) (emphasis added). The preapproval constraint greatly constricts the normal
discretion ICE agents enjoy while exercising their statutory and regulatory duties on
behalf of the agency. See (Dkt. No. 19-4 at ¶ 29) (“This policy requires field agents to
obtain special permission before engaging in routine enforcement.”); cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1357;
8 C.F.R. § 287.5. Put differently, agents now need the approval of a FOD or SAC to
conduct otherwise routine enforcement operations. (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 7); (Dkt. No. 19-4 at
¶ 29).
135
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 136 of 160
agent or officer must consider, in consultation with his or her leadership, the nature and
recency of the noncitizen’s convictions, the type and length of sentences imposed,
resources, and other relevant factors.” (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 7) (emphasis added). “In
requesting . . . preapproval, the officer or agent must raise a written justification through
the chain of command, explaining why the action otherwise constitutes a justified allocation
of limited resources, and identify the date, time, and location the enforcement action or
removal is expected to take place.” (Id.) (emphases added). In other words, an agent or
action, put this justification in writing, work this written justification through a chain of
command and, most importantly, wait for approval to conduct what would otherwise be
general to limit the agents’ usual discretion, the February 18 Memorandum goes even
making power is greatly reduced. First, the February 18 Memorandum states that “[t]he
approval to carry out an enforcement action against a particular noncitizen will not
136
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 137 of 160
during an operation.”57 (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 7). Simply put, the February 18 Memorandum
limits agency discretion in detaining and conducting other enforcement actions against
nonpriority aliens where exigent circumstances exist. See (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 7). To be sure,
the Memorandum allows for detention of, and other enforcement actions against,
“impracticable.” (Id.). And while the Memorandum acknowledges that “it is impossible
approval, albeit after the enforcement action is conducted. (Id.). Specifically, the agent is
required, within 24 hours of the enforcement action having been conducted, to “explain
the exigency, where and when the enforcement activity took place, and whether the
137
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 138 of 160
noncitizen is currently detained.” (Id. at 7 n.7).58 Once again, in a situation in which the
In light of these policies, it is perhaps no surprise that the States provide evidence
suggesting that ICE agents and officers will treat the Memorandum as a list of
instructions rather than mere guidance. See (Dkt. No. 19-4 at ¶ 36). Specifically, a former
Acting Director of ICE with more than 32 years of service in the agency testified that, “[a]s
a practical matter, ICE officers are likely to treat the ‘priorities’ as categorical rules rather
unsurprisingly, there is evidence in the record tending to show that these “categorical
rules” in the February 18 Memorandum are already hampering enforcement actions and
will continue to deter agents and officers from exercising their discretion in determining
whether to conduct enforcement actions in the future. See (Dkt. No. 19-3 at 3–8); (Dkt.
No. 46 at ¶ 17); cf. Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 173 (assessing how DAPA has been applied
In addition to limiting the discretion of individual ICE agents and officers, the
Memoranda also restrict the discretion of entire ICE field offices. See (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 6);
(Dkt. No. 42-2 at 6). Specifically, the February 18 Memorandum states that “ICE will
138
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 139 of 160
require field offices to coordinate their operations and obtain preapproval for
enforcement and removal actions that do not meet the above criteria for presumed
priority cases.” (Id.). In other words, the Memoranda not only require individual agents
and officers to receive preapproval before conducting enforcement actions against aliens
falling outside the three priority groups; they also appear to bind the field offices themselves
For these reasons, the Court finds that the amount of discretion that the February
of policy. Weighing this factor along with the rights and obligations affected, the Court
Procedural Rule
nevertheless be exempt from notice and comment if it is a rule “of agency organization,
procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A); see also Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176. The
Government does not assert that the February 18 Memorandum is a rule of DHS
procedure. (Dkt. No. 42 at 47–50). The Fifth Circuit employs two tests to determine
whether a rule is one of agency procedure. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176–77; see also
Texas, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 728. Here, both tests yield the same conclusion: the Memoranda
do not constitute a procedural rule that is exempt from the APA’s notice and comment
requirement.
139
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 140 of 160
The first test used by the Fifth Circuit to determine whether a rule is procedural is
the “substantial impact test.” See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176. This test “is the primary
means by which [the court] look[s] beyond the label ‘procedural’ to determine whether a
rule is of the type Congress thought appropriate for public participation.” Id. (citing Kast
Metals, 744 F.2d at 1153). “An agency rule that modifies substantive rights and interests
can only be nominally procedural, and the exemption for such rules of agency procedure
cannot apply.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176 (quoting Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d at 1153).
In making this determination, the question is not “whether the rule is ‘substantive’
or ‘procedural,’ but rather whether the rule will have a ‘substantial impact’ on those
regulated.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir.), modified on reh’g,
36 F.3d 89 (5th Cir. 1994), for text, see No. 93-1377, 1994 WL 484506 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 1994).
This distinction makes good sense, as “the notice and comment provisions ‘were
Phillips Petroleum Co., 22 F.3d at 620 (quoting NLRB v. Wyman–Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759,
764, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 1429, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969)), and to “afford an opportunity for ‘the
agency promulgating the rule to educate itself before establishing rules and procedures
which have a substantial impact on those regulated.’” Phillips Petroleum Co., 22 F.3d at
620 (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 412 F.2d 740, 744 (3d Cir. 1969)).
regulated, the Court may consider whether the rule creates legal or financial obligations
for the plaintiff and whether the rule restricts the discretion of agency officials. See Texas
DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176 (concluding DAPA “undoubtedly [satisfies the substantial impact]
140
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 141 of 160
test—conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens residing in Texas forces the state
amending its statutes”); Phillips Petroleum Co., 22 F.3d at 620 (concluding the rule at issue
was not procedural because, in part, “[t]he rule narrowly restrict[ed] the discretion of
MMS officials in determining the value of NGLP’s” and “[i]t foreclose[d] other valuation
methods by prescribing binding valuation criteria”); see also Texas, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 728
(concluding DACA is not a procedural rule, having found it “undoubtedly satisfies [the
substantial impact] test because it has forced the states to spend money on various social
omitted)). If the rule has a substantial impact on “the regulated industry, or an important
class of the members or the products of that industry,” then “notice and opportunity for
comment should first be provided” because “[t]he exemption of § 553(b)(A) from the duty
to provide notice by publication does not extend to those procedural rules that depart
from existing practice and have a substantial impact on those regulated.” Phillips
Considering these criteria, the Memoranda satisfy the substantial impact test.
First, as discussed above, the Memoranda affect at least one of Texas’s legal obligations.
See supra II.B.2.b. Specifically, they affect Texas’s legal and financial obligations to
partially fund Emergency Medicaid to aliens who fall within the ambit of Sections 1226(c)
or 1231(a)(2) but, pursuant to the Memoranda, are not detained by ICE when they are
released from state custody or during the removal period. The Memoranda also have a
substantial impact because, as just described, they limit the discretion exercised by ICE
141
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 142 of 160
field offices, agents, and officers. In sum, the February 18 Memorandum mandates a
process for ICE field offices and agents to follow for obtaining preapproval to detain
aliens the Memoranda deem to be nonpriorities. This mandatory policy restricts DHS
from exercising discretion and conducting routine enforcement actions against aliens the
routine civil immigration enforcement actions is yet another substantial impact the
detention. As discussed above, see supra II.B.2.b, and as another district court’s ruling
imminent,” thus entitling some of those aliens to be released from detention. Hussein
S.M., 2021 WL 1986125, at *3; Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. at 2505. Considering the
many ways the Memoranda affect rights and obligations, it is clear that the Memoranda
have a substantial impact and, therefore, the substantial impact test weighs against
The second test for determining whether a rule is procedural asks the Court to
weigh two considerations. First, the Court must consider the “effect on those interests
ultimately at stake in the agency proceeding.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 176 (citing Nat’l
Sec. Couns. v. CIA, 931 F. Supp. 2d 77, 107 (D.D.C. 2013)) (quotation omitted). “Hence,
regulated individuals are considered procedural, rather than substantive.” Texas DAPA,
809 F.3d at 176 (citing Nat’l Sec. Couns., 931 F. Supp. 2d at 107). This consideration clearly
142
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 143 of 160
weighs against characterizing the Memoranda as procedural rules, given that the Court
has already found that the Memoranda affect the rights and obligations of Texas, DHS,
Second, the Court must assess whether the Memoranda affect the substantive
standards by which DHS determines whether to detain certain aliens. See Texas DAPA,
809 F.3d at 176–77 (“[R]ules are generally considered procedural so long as they do not
‘change the substantive standards by which the [agency] evaluates’ applications which
seek a benefit that the agency has the power to provide.” (quotation omitted)). Here, the
Memoranda alter the substantive standards by which DHS determines whether and
when to detain certain aliens by departing from the plain statutory requirements in
Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) and effectively replacing them with new standards for
making such determinations. As discussed above, Section 1226(c) requires DHS to detain
aliens falling within the ambit of that provision when they are released from state
custody. See supra II.B.3.a. Section 1231(a)(2) requires DHS to detain an alien with a final
order of removal during the removal period. See supra II.B.3.a. The Memoranda,
that declares some aliens falling within the ambit of Section 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) as
enforcement “priorities” and others also falling within those same statutory categories as
“nonpriorities.” See (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 4–7). And to detain nonpriorities, the February 18
Memorandum requires ICE agents to obtain preapproval. See (Id. at 7). No such
Rather, these provisions plainly require DHS to detain all aliens who meet the
143
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 144 of 160
enumerated statutory criteria and that DHS detain them at or during the time stated in
the provisions. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c), 1231(a)(2). Thus, the Memoranda change the
“substantive standards by which [DHS] evaluates” whether or not to detain an alien who
falls within the ambit of Section 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 177
applications which seek a benefit that the agency purportedly has the power to provide—
a critical fact requiring notice and comment.” (cleaned up)). Therefore, this test also
In sum, the Court finds that the Memoranda do not constitute a rule that is exempt
from the notice and comment requirements of Section 553. The Memoranda are not
general statements of policy because they have a binding effect insofar as they presently
affect certain rights and obligations and do not afford sufficient discretion to DHS and its
decisionmakers. Likewise, the Memoranda are not procedural rules because they have a
significant impact on DHS, the states, and certain aliens. Therefore, the Court finds Texas
has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its procedural APA claim.
2. Irreparable Harm
States must demonstrate “a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not
issued.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 150. Put another way, the States must show they are
“likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at
20, 129 S.Ct. at 374 (emphasis added). For an injury to be sufficiently “irreparable,” the
144
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 145 of 160
States need only show the injury “cannot be undone through monetary remedies.”
Burgess v. FDIC, 871 F.3d 297, 304 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of
The States argue their injuries are irreparable because they will incur financial
costs that are unrecoverable. (Dkt. No. 18 at 40–41); (Dkt. No. 51 at 31). The States also
argue they will suffer irreparable harm because non-detention will result in increased
crime. (Id.). In response, the Government contends there is no irreparable harm because
“there is not a significant impact on the States.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 50). The Court concludes
the States have demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm for the following
reasons.
As discussed in this Court’s standing analysis, the States have presented evidence
demonstrating the Memoranda cause financial harm in the form of increased costs for
detention facilities. See supra II.A.1.a. The States have also demonstrated the Memoranda
harm their interests as parens patriae because of an increase in criminal activity resulting
from the Memoranda’s implementation. See supra II.A.1.b. The Court found these two
injuries were concrete, imminent, and traceable to the Memoranda. The Court also
concludes the threat of injuries to the States is “likely” as that term is used by the Supreme
There is also no indication the States can recover for their injuries. Indeed, there
is no immediately discernable theory under which a state can “pierce the federal
to recover from its budgetary harm.” Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669,
145
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 146 of 160
at *47. To that point, no Party has suggested the States can recover any of their likely
financial injuries here. And the Fifth Circuit rebuffed an attempt by Texas in the late
1990s to force the federal government to pay medical, educational, and criminal justice
expenditures caused by immigration. See Texas, 106 F.3d at 663–64 (“The State of Texas
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief which would require that the United
States pay the educational, medical, and criminal justice expenses allegedly incurred as a
result of the presence of undocumented or illegal aliens in Texas. Concluding that the
statutory violations, we affirm.”). Thus, any financial injury is irreparable. See Burgess,
As for injuries to the States’ interests as parens patriae, the Supreme Court has
determined that “law enforcement and public safety interests” can constitute irreparable
harm. See Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1303, 133 S.Ct. 1, 3, 183 L.Ed.2d 667 (2012)
harm because it was enjoined from effectuating a statute that assisted government
and public-safety interests underlie the States’ parens patriae injuries. Accordingly, the
States have demonstrated they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief.” See Benisek, ____ U.S. at ____, 138 S.Ct. at 1944.
146
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 147 of 160
Having concluded the States have satisfied the first two elements for obtaining a
preliminary injunction, the Court must now determine whether “the threatened injury
outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant” and whether
“the injunction will not undermine the public interest.” Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd.,
118 F.3d 1047, 1051, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997); accord Gonzales v. Mathis Indep. Sch. Dist., 978 F.3d
291, 294 (5th Cir. 2020). Federal courts have considered the balance-of-equities and
public-interest elements together as they overlap considerably. Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at
187; Franciscan All., Inc. v. Burwell, 227 F. Supp. 3d 660, 694 n.36 (N.D. Tex. 2016). And
because the Government is the nonmoving party, these two elements “merge.” Nken v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1762, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009); accord Texas DAPA,
In weighing the equities, a court “must balance the competing claims of injury and
must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested
relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24, 129 S.Ct. at 376. As for determining whether an injunction
will undermine the public interest, a court should consider the public interests that may
be injured and those that may be served by granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 645 F.3d 978, 997–98 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing
Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1116 (10th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Dine
Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016); All. for the Wild
147
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 148 of 160
The States argue the Government has no interest in the implementation and
enforcement of the unlawful policy contained in the Memoranda. (Dkt. No. 18 at 41–42).
The States contend the public interest is furthered when the Executive Branch follows
congressional mandates. See (Id. at 42); (Dkt. No. 51 at 31–32). In response, the
which “outweighs any harm to the States and undermines the public interest.” (Dkt. No.
42 at 55). In the Government’s view, an injunction would inhibit its ability to prioritize
limited resources, cause confusion within the Executive Branch, and impede any effort to
draft final guidance. (Id. at 55–56). The Government also contends the public interest is
served when it has the ability “to prioritize national security, border security, and public
safety.” (Id. at 57). Considering these arguments, the Court finds the States have the
upper hand.
substantial harm” to their state budgets and interests as parens patriae. See Burwell, 227 F.
claim that the States’ injuries are “speculative.” See (Dkt. No. 42 at 22–23). Instead, the
Court has found the States’ injuries from costs relating to detention facilities and
increased criminal activity are traceable to the implementation of the Memoranda. See
supra II.A.2.
Although the States face substantial harm from the implementation of the
Memoranda, the Government nevertheless attempts to show that the harm it faces is
worse. The Government, however, postulates harms “that are less substantial” and
148
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 149 of 160
“vague.” See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 186. Specifically, the Government makes much of
an injunction’s supposed harm to the Executive Branch’s authority. See (Dkt. No. 42 at
55–56). Although it is true that the Executive Branch retains vast discretion in
immigration enforcement, see Arizona, 567 U.S. at 396, 132 S.Ct. at 2499; Reno, 525 U.S. at
490, 119 S.Ct. at 946, that discretion ebbs when Congress sets forth a statutory mandate.
Indeed, “[i]t is undisputed that Congress may mandate that the Executive Branch detain
certain noncitizens during removal proceedings or before removal.” Preap, ____ U.S. at
____, 139 S.Ct. at 973 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Sections 1226(c) and
1231(a)(2) do just that: they require the Executive Branch to detain certain aliens at or for
a specified time.59 Any harm to the Government is therefore exaggerated and should be
addressed to Congress.
because it would inhibit the Executive Branch’s ability to prioritize limited resources.60
(Dkt. No. 42 at 55–56). The Court is unpersuaded. First, in at least one case, the Fifth
Circuit has concluded that any inefficiency resulting from an injunction inhibiting the
59 The Government implicitly invokes prosecutorial discretion with respect to any harm
an injunction may cause its Article II authority. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 55). This argument does not
warrant much discussion. Indeed, the Court has already extensively discussed the extent of the
Executive’s discretion in enforcing a law when a clear congressional mandate is in place. See supra
II.B.3.
60 Relatedly, the Government argues that an injunction would harm it by dismantling the
two-step process ICE currently undergoes to determine whether to detain an alien in state
custody. See (Dkt. No. 42 at 56). Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) already mandate which aliens
must be detained and the time at or for which the Government must detain the alien.
149
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 150 of 160
by the major financial losses [that] states face.” See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 187. Here,
the Court, in its standing analysis, has already found the Memoranda will result in
significant financial losses for the States. See supra II.A.1.a. Second, the Government
overestimates the effect of an injunction on the Executive’s limited resources. Rather than
dictate the use of resources, the injunction precludes the Executive Branch from
words, the Government remains free to expend its resources in a lawful manner.
To this point, “the public is served when the law is followed,” Daniels Health Scis.,
L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 2013), and the public will
be served if the Executive Branch is enjoined from implementing and enforcing a policy
that instructs officials to violate a congressional command. See League of Women Voters of
United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“There is generally no public
interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”); Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v.
Castillo, 659 F.2d. 1211, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (collecting cases) (“[T]he public interest in
enforcement of the immigration laws is significant.”); cf. Nken, 556 U.S. at 436, 129 S.Ct.
The public interest is particularly strong here because, as fully described earlier, Sections
1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) are statutes that Congress enacted for the benefit of the United
States, its citizens, and its legal immigrants. See supra I.A.; Demore, 538 U.S. at 518–21, 123
Finally, the Government argues an injunction would result in confusion inside the
Executive Branch because immigration officials will be left with little to no guidance on
150
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 151 of 160
how to exercise their enforcement discretion. (Dkt. No. 42 at 56). Relatedly, the
Government also theorizes that injunctive relief would impede its effort to draft final
guidance. (Id. at 56–57). These arguments are puzzling because, with or without an
injunction in place, the Government is free to craft new guidance or instruct Executive
Branch officials to act in a certain manner so long as such guidance and instructions comport
Given the discussion above, the Court concludes the potential harms to the States
arising out of the Memoranda outweigh any potential harms to the Government. The
Court also concludes the public interest is served, rather than undermined, by an
injunction. Thus, the States have satisfied all four elements for a preliminary injunction.
C. SCOPE OF RELIEF
The States have satisfied the standard for a preliminary injunction. This
conclusion raises two additional inquiries: the geographic scope of the injunction as well
as the nature of the injunctive remedy. The Court addresses each in turn.
1. Geographic Scope
The States request a nationwide injunction. (Dkt. No. 18 at 42–43). The Court has
____, 2021 WL 247877, at *6–7; see also Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669,
disagreement in the courts and in legal academia. See id. But, as with any case, this Court
scope for an injunction is appropriate. That precedent explains that a federal district
151
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 152 of 160
injunction.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 188. One such appropriate circumstance is when a
prescribed by federal law. Id. at 187–88; see also E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland, 994
F.3d 962, 987 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[C]ases implicating immigration policy have a particularly
strong claim for uniform, nationwide relief.” (citation omitted)). Another such
injunction would be ineffective because [the] beneficiaries [of the unlawful policy] would
The Court finds both circumstances exist here. First, the Memoranda affect
national immigration policy, which is designed to be uniform. See id. at 187–88. Second,
given what has been detailed in the Court’s standing analysis, a geographically limited
injunction is insufficient to protect the States from irreparable harm because aliens not
detained pursuant to the Memoranda in other states are able to move to Texas and
Louisiana. See supra II.A.2 & II.A.3; see also Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 188. The States
submitted evidence showing that “more than 50,000 noncitizens moved into Texas from
another U.S. State in 2019.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 42) (citing Dkt. No. 19-21); see also (Dkt. No.
appropriate. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 187–88; see also Texas I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____,
152
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 153 of 160
concerning the Memoranda in other jurisdictions have been unsuccessful. (Dkt. No. 42
at 60). This misses the point. In determining the appropriate scope of an injunction, the
Court’s task is to fashion a remedy that prevents the plaintiffs in this case from suffering
irreparable harm. See ODonnell v. Harris County, 892 F.3d 147, 163 (5th Cir. 2018) (“When
crafting an injunction, district courts are guided by the Supreme Court’s instruction that
‘the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established.’”
(quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 2558, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979));
see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. New York, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 140 S.Ct. 599, 600, 206
L.Ed.2d 115 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the grant of a stay) (“Equitable remedies,
like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff
in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule
against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to
its jurisdiction in the first place.” (emphasis added)); ODonnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 2018) (“The district court must narrowly tailor an injunction to remedy the
specific action which gives rise to the order.” (emphasis added) (quoting John Doe # 1 v.
Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004))). In concluding the States are entitled to
injunctive relief, this Court has determined, based on Fifth Circuit precedent and the
record before it, that a nationwide injunction is appropriate to prevent the States from
effect, any attempt by the Government to create a new federal policy is thwarted by “a
153
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 154 of 160
single successful challenge” to the policy, even if other challenges to the policy are
unsuccessful. (Dkt. No. 42 at 60) (quoting Dep’t of Homeland Sec., ____ U.S. at ____, 140
S.Ct. at 601 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the grant of a stay)). Frankly, the Court shares
precedent, see Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 187–88, and “must narrowly tailor an injunction
to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order,” Goodhart, 900 F.3d at 224
(emphasis added) (quoting Veneman, 380 F.3d at 818); see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec., ____
U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 600 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the grant of a stay). The Court
Third, the Government attempts to distinguish this case from Texas DAPA and
Texas I by asserting that this case involves individual detention decisions rather than a
blanket policy pausing enforcement actions against aliens. (Dkt. No. 42 at 60). To be sure,
I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *51, but the States are not challenging
individual enforcement decisions. Rather, the States, like the plaintiffs in Texas DAPA
and Texas I, are challenging a blanket policy. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 146–49; Texas
I, ____ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *30. Specifically, the States are challenging
the Memoranda, which implement and enforce a blanket policy regarding the detention
Government’s argument that this case is distinguishable from Texas I and Texas DAPA
falls short.
154
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 155 of 160
Finally, the Government argues that, because the States’ injuries are supposedly
to the boundaries of those two states will sufficiently protect them from any irreparable
harm they may suffer due to the Memoranda. (Dkt. No. 42 at 60–61). The Court disagrees
for two reasons. First, the Government incorrectly asserts that the States’ injuries are
premised on detainers when the States’ injuries are, in fact, premised on the increased
costs to their detention systems and their interests as parens patriae. See (Dkt. No. 1 at 15–
16); (Dkt. No. 18 at 15–16, 18, 35–37). Second, in arguing that the geographic scope of the
injunction should be limited to the boundaries of Texas and Louisiana, the Government
ignores that, if aliens are not detained in other states, those aliens can migrate to Texas
and Louisiana thus causing them harm. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 188 (recognizing
ineffective because” the beneficiaries of the unlawful policies “would be free to move
among states”). Indeed, the evidence produced in this case regarding the migration
patterns of aliens to Texas and from other states buttresses this point. See supra II.A.2 &
II.A.3; (Dkt. No. 19-21 at 5–7); (Dkt. No. 19-22 at 5–7, 14); (Dkt. No. 19-23 at 2). The
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the States are entitled to a nationwide injunction.
2. Remedy
As stated above, “the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the
violation established.” ODonnell, 892 F.3d at 163 (quoting Califano, 442 U.S. at 702, 99
S.Ct. at 2558); see also Goodhart, 900 F.3d at 224 (“The district court must narrowly tailor
155
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 156 of 160
an injunction to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order.” (quoting
Veneman, 380 F.3d at 818)). Since the States have satisfied the four elements required for
a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that it is appropriate to enjoin the Executive
Branch from implementing and enforcing the Memoranda. Specifically, the Court enjoins
(1) Section B of the January 20 Memorandum, and (2) the sections from the February 18
(Dkt. No. 1-2 at 4–8). These sections implement and enforce a policy that directly
congressional mandates are unlawful—plain and simple. See Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573
U.S. at 327, 134 S.Ct. at 2446; Barnhart, 534 U.S. at 462, 122 S.Ct. at 956. Moreover, the
States have met their burden to show a substantial likelihood that the Memoranda’s
policy prioritizing the detention of certain aliens over others is arbitrary and capricious
and fails to comply with the APA’s notice and comment requirement. The Court
IV. CONCLUSION
Although this case involves many issues of administrative and immigration law,
its core concerns whether the Executive Branch may implement a policy that directly
61 The States also request that the Court issue a positive injunction to compel agency action
unlawfully withheld. (Dkt. No. 18 at 25–26); (Dkt. No. 51 at 33). The Government is opposed.
(Dkt. No. 42 at 57–61). Under the APA, a “reviewing court shall . . . compel agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The Court reserves ruling on
this issue until later in the litigation.
156
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 157 of 160
conflicts with laws that Congress enacted. The answer is no. In the end, through all their
Because the States have demonstrated that there is a substantial likelihood that
portions of the Memoranda direct Executive Branch officials to act in a way that is
contrary to Sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), those sections of the Memoranda cannot stand
and are hereby enjoined. Additionally, the Court enjoins the sections of the Memoranda
described above because the States have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the
policy concerning detention of certain aliens set forth in the Memoranda is arbitrary and
capricious under the APA and the Memoranda fail to comply with the APA’s notice and
comment requirement.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the States’ Motion for Preliminary
157
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 158 of 160
1. By September 3, 2021, the Government must file with the Court the legal
standard it is abiding by with respect to the detention of aliens covered by
or subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A)–(D) given the Court’s injunction of the
Memoranda at issue in this lawsuit. The information should state with
specificity what guidance, protocols, or standards control the detention of
these aliens in light of the fact that the Memoranda have been enjoined.
2. By September 3, 2021, the Government must file with the Court the legal
standard it is abiding by with respect to the detention of aliens covered by
or subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) given the Court’s injunction of the
Memoranda at issue in this lawsuit. The information should state with
specificity what guidance, protocols, or standards control the detention of
aliens in light of the fact that the Memoranda have been enjoined.
3. Starting in September 2021, the Government must file with the Court on the
5th day of each month a report stating the number of aliens known to the
Government, who are covered by or subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A)–(D),
who were released from custody during the previous month, and whom
ICE did not detain immediately upon their release.
62 This Memorandum Opinion and Order does not prohibit the Government from carrying
out or adhering to the February 18 Memorandum’s subsections entitled “Notice of At-Large
Enforcement Actions” and “Weekly Reporting of All Enforcement and Removal Actions.”
158
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 159 of 160
For each of these aliens, provide under seal the alien’s last known residence
or address and the offense for which the alien had been incarcerated.
Additionally, for each alien not detained, the Government shall make and
retain a contemporaneous record of the reason why the alien was not
detained and the individual who made that specific determination.
4. Starting in September 2021, the Government must file with the Court on the
5th day of each month a report stating the number of aliens in their removal
period as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). Of those, provide the number
who were not detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).
For each of these aliens not detained, provide under seal the alien’s last
known residence or address.
Additionally, for each alien not detained, the Government shall make a
contemporaneous record of the reason why the alien was not detained and
the individual who made that specific determination.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order does not prohibit the Government from
“A. Comprehensive Review of Enforcement Policies and Priorities” and “D. No Private
Right Statement.”63 This Memorandum Opinion and Order also does not prohibit the
It is SO ORDERED.
63 This Court previously enjoined Section C of the January 20 Memorandum. See Texas I,
___ F. Supp. 3d at ____, 2021 WL 2096669, at *52.
159
Case 6:21-cv-00016 Document 79 Filed on 08/19/21 in TXSD Page 160 of 160
_____________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
160