Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • NAAG Center on Cyber and Technology
      • NAAG Center for Excellence in Governance
      • NAAG Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • NAAG Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • NAGTRI Center for Consumer Protection
      • NAGTRI Center for Ethics & Public Integrity
      • NAGTRI Center for International Partnerships & Strategic Collaboration
      • NAGTRI Center for Leadership Development
      • NAGTRI Center for Legal Advocacy & Faculty Development
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • NAGTRI Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAGTRI Faculty
    • Video Library
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • AGs in the News
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAGTRI
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • NAGTRI
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • NAGTRI
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • NAAG Center on Cyber and Technology
      • NAAG Center for Excellence in Governance
      • NAAG Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • NAAG Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • NAGTRI Center for Consumer Protection
      • NAGTRI Center for Ethics & Public Integrity
      • NAGTRI Center for International Partnerships & Strategic Collaboration
      • NAGTRI Center for Leadership Development
      • NAGTRI Center for Legal Advocacy & Faculty Development
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • NAGTRI Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAGTRI Faculty
    • Video Library
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • AGs in the News
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAGTRI
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • NAGTRI
  • Contact Us

Supreme Court Report: Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, CA, 20-1775

Home / Supreme Court / Supreme Court Report: Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, CA, 20-1775
November 9, 2021 Supreme Court
Share this

  • Dan Schweitzer
    Director, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
    National Association of Attorneys General

November 9, 2021
Volume 29, Issue 3

This Report summarizes cases granted review on October 29 and November 5, 2021 (Part I).

Cases Granted Review: Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, CA, 20-1775

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, CA, 20-1775. The Court limited the grant of certiorari to the first question presented, which asks “[w]hether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.” The issue arises in the wake of the Biden administration’s decision not to appeal rulings striking down a Trump administration rule interpreting the “public charge” provision of the immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “[a]ny alien who . . ., in the opinion of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(4)(A). Although the statute does not define “public charge,” it provides that the Secretary “shall at a minimum consider the alien’s (I) age; (II) health; (III) family status; (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and (V) education and skills.” §1182(a)(4)(B). In August 2019, DHS issued a final rule (the Rule) that adopted a new approach to public-charge determinations. The Rule defined “public charge” to mean a noncitizen who receives one or more specified public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period. The specified benefits included cash assistance for income maintenance as well as certain federal non-cash benefits, such as for healthcare, housing, and nutrition assistance. Under the Rule, a “broader” and “expanded” group of noncitizens were potentially inadmissible to the United States than under the prior interpretation.

The 2019 Rule generated extensive litigation across the United States. Plaintiffs who had opposed adoption of the Rule (including 21 states and numerous local governments and nongovernmental organizations) filed suits in five district courts in four circuits alleging that the Rule was unlawful on numerous grounds. All five district courts concluded that the 2019 Rule was likely unlawful, and entered preliminary injunctions barring the Rule from taking effect. After those rulings were stayed (either by the court of appeals or Supreme Court), DHS began implementing the Rule for the first time in February 2020. The government’s appeals of the preliminary injunctions proceeded, and the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits affirmed the preliminary injunctions entered in their respective jurisdictions. In November 2020, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a partial final judgment, which vacated the 2019 Rule on a nationwide basis under the Administrative Procedure Act. On February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari in DHS v. New York, No. 20-449, which sought review of the preliminary injunctions issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. At the time, a cert petition seeking review of the Ninth Circuit decision affirming preliminary injunctions was pending. About two weeks later, DHS (now under the Biden administration) announced that the government would cease defending the 2019 Rule. Consistent with that determination, the government filed stipulations dismissing the cases in the Supreme Court, and likewise filed motions to dismiss active public-charge-related appeals in the lower courts, including the government’s appeal of the partial final judgment entered by the Northern District of Illinois. DHS then issued a statement noting that “[f]ollowing the Seventh Circuit dismissal . . ., the final judgment . . ., which vacated the 2019 public charge rule, went into effect” and “[a]s a result, the 1999 interim field guidance . . . that was in place before the 2019 public charge rule is now in effect.”

One day after the United States dismissed its petition in this case, the State of Arizona in conjunction with twelve other states (the Petitioning States) moved to intervene in the Ninth Circuit for the purpose of defending the Rule. On April 8, 2021, a majority of the court denied the motion over a dissent by Judge VanDyke. In seeking review of that holding, the Petitioning States argue that “when an incoming administration concludes that current litigation is inconsistent with its policy preferences, it typically takes the ‘traditional route’ and requests that the court hold cases in abeyance while the United States pursues the APA process.” Instead (in Judge VanDyke’s words), the United States “terminate[d] the rule with extreme prejudice—ensuring not only that the rule was gone faster than toilet paper in a pandemic, but that it could effectively never, ever be resurrected, even by a future administration.” The Petitioning States maintain that “[b]y stipulating to dismiss pending appeals challenging the Rule, the Administration managed to circumvent the APA rulemaking processes entirely, depriving the States of the input they would normally have.” And “this was done all while evading th[e Supreme] Court’s review of the merits of the Rule.” The Petitioning States argue that they “satisfied all requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24.” As to timeliness, “the Petitioning States moved in the Ninth Circuit a mere one day after it became clear that the United States would no longer defend the Rule.” “As to the remaining factors, the Petitioning States have significant protectable interests in the continuing validity of the Rule and that interest was no longer being represented at all. The Rule itself estimates that it would save all of the states cumulatively $1.01 billion annually, and the Petitioning States here would save a share of that amount. The States also have an important procedural right to comment on any new rulemaking under the APA. The dismissal of pending appeals, and the subsequent vacatur-by-surrender, obviously impeded the Petitioning States’ ability to protect their interests.” (Citation omitted.)

The United States counters that “[t]he appeal in which petitioners seek to intervene is now moot. The court of appeals’ decision on the merits concerned preliminary injunctions that temporarily barred DHS from enforcing the 2019 Rule. But as petitioners acknowledge, a district court in separate litigation has since ‘vacat[ed] the Rule in its entirety,’ that court’s judgment has become final, and the Rule has accordingly been removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. The preliminary injunctions that petitioners seek to challenge consequently have no ongoing real-world effect, and an order setting those injunctions aside would provide them with no relief.” (Citations omitted.) Further, argues the United States, “the legal questions at issue do not implicate any substantive legal rights of States that petitioners can intervene to raise; the ‘defense for which intervention is sought,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), is instead the federal government’s legal defense of its exercise of authority under the INA, which petitioners have no independent right to assert.”

[Editor’s note: Some of the language in the background section of the summary above was taken from the petition for writ of certiorari and brief in opposition.]

Related Posts

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report: Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, 21-463

Supreme Court Report: Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 21A471

Supreme Court Report: Brown v. Davenport, 20-826

Related Posts

  • Supreme Court Report: Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, 21-463
  • Supreme Court Report: Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 21A471
  • Supreme Court Report: Brown v. Davenport, 20-826

Recent Posts

  • 41 State Attorneys General Write CFPB in Support of Debt Bondage Repair Act
  • NAAG Announces Formation of Center on Cyber and Technology
  • The Anticorruption Manual: Section VI: Civil & Administrative Enforcement, Asset Forfeiture, & Collateral Consequences of Corruption
  • Press Invited to Attend Portion of Consumer Protection Conference
  • Supreme Court Report: City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 20-1029

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • NAAG Center on Cyber and Technology
      • NAAG Center for Excellence in Governance
      • NAAG Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • NAAG Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • NAGTRI Center for Consumer Protection
      • NAGTRI Center for Ethics & Public Integrity
      • NAGTRI Center for International Partnerships & Strategic Collaboration
      • NAGTRI Center for Leadership Development
      • NAGTRI Center for Legal Advocacy & Faculty Development
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • NAGTRI Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAGTRI Faculty
    • Video Library
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • AGs in the News
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAGTRI
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • NAGTRI
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • NAGTRI
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for the 56 state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2022 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Scroll To Top