On April 3, 2022, the States of Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri filed this suit to challenge the Center for Disease Control’s announcement that it would be ending its Title 42 expulsion order as of May 23, 2022. Under that order, most noncitizens seeking humanitarian protection have been summarily expelled, without the opportunity to apply for asylum, since March 2020, ostensibly to stop the introduction of COVID-19 into the United States. Other states were added to the case later, such that there are now 24 Plaintiff states. The States allege that the termination of the Title 42 expulsion order was done without going through the proper procedures.
[Note that because Arizona is listed first in the complaint, we (per the convention) refer to this case as Arizona v. CDC; however, because it was filed in Louisiana, it is sometimes referred to as Louisiana v. CDC.]
Just a week after filing their motion for a preliminary injunction, the States filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requesting that the Court prohibit the Biden Administration from “early implementation” of Title 42’s end. Judge Summerhays orally granted the TRO request on April 25, which he followed with a four-page opinion.
That (nationwide) TRO was in place until May 20, when Judge Summerhays issued an opinion and order granting the States’ preliminary injunction request, thereby prohibiting implementation of the CDC’s order ending Title 42. A week later, Judge Summerhays denied a motion by Innovation Law Lab–a non-profit organization that had sought unsuccessfully to intervene in this case–to stay (pause) the preliminary injunction except as it relates to the 24 Plaintiff states. Innovation Law Lab then joined the federal government’s appeal, which remains pending.
Currently pending is the Biden Administration’s request to stay (pause) further proceedings in this Court until the appeal of the preliminary injunction opinion is fully resolved. That motion to stay was fully briefed as of June 17, 2022.
The States allege that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirement and its prohibition on arbitrary and capricious agency action. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the States argued that they are likely to succeed on both of their claims.
On the merits, Judge Summerhays’ TRO opinion states only the following: “The Plaintiff States have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their claims that the Termination Order was not issued in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Judge Summerhays’ PI opinion, meanwhile, is premised solely on the notice and comment claim.
Full Timeline and Documents
- 05/05/2022Amicus Brief by 58 Organizations and Public Interest Law Firms (PDF) (PDF)
This amicus brief was co-authored by JAC and the Tulane Immigrant Rights Law Clinic.