Federal immigration cases

Federal immigration cases cited by liberals and the Biden administration to perpetuate the influx of illegal aliens include (the asterisks afterwards show the relative emphasis placed on each precedent):

• Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1989) (“The decision whether to grant a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of a district court.”)
• Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003) - “the Constitution entrusts foreign policy exclusively to the National Government”
• Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) ******

• a 5-3 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, over the dissents of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, which found federal preemption of anti-illegal alien Arizona laws. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority, while Justice Kagan recused herself.

• Atkins v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a motion and cross motion for summary judgment under can be decided on a Rule 65(a)(2) preliminary-injunction motion)
• Barzelis v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 784 F.3d 971 (5th Cir. 2015)
• Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 806 (2022) ** - attempting to compel “non-Mexican nationals” to go back to Mexico “impose[s] a significant burden upon the Executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico.”

• But this decision can be helpful as Texas says: §1252(f)(1) does not go to subject matter jurisdiction, see Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 798 (2022), and thus "a party may waive its applicability in a particular case, including by agreeing to a court order contrary to the statute’s terms."

• Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001)

• analogizing to immigration to FDA preemption: FDA supposedly sought a “somewhat delicate balance” which should not be allowed by “skewed by allowing fraud-on-the-FDA claims under state tort law”

• Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) **

• Note the 1875 date; this held that governmental authority to pass immigration laws “belongs to Congress, and not to the States” because Congress “has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” and “the responsibility for the character of those regulations, and for the manner of their execution, belongs solely to the national government”
• “a single State [could], at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”

• City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164, 188-89 (5th Cir. 2018) (Jones, J.)

• A conservative decision that upheld a state law ban on sanctuary cities, while narrowing the liberal Farmers Branch and Arizona v. U.S. as follows:

Neither Arizona nor Farmers Branch undermines subsection (b). Arizona denied state officers the power to unilaterally make removability determinations because "[a] decision on removability requires a determination whether it is appropriate to allow a foreign national to continue living in the United States" and such decisions "touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice." Arizona, 567 U.S. at 409, 132 S. Ct. at 2506-07. Likewise, Farmers Branch invalidated an ordinance requiring building inspectors to conduct their own "unlawful presence" inquiries. 726 F.3d at 532. Both cases involved unilateral status-determinations absent federal direction. But subsection (b) operates only when there is already federal direction—namely, an ICEdetainer request—and the subsection merely limits the scope of the officer's duty to comply with that request. It remains the ICE agent who makes the underlying removability determination.

• Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005)
• Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) **

• affirming a district court decision that held “[a] law need not be designed to further local economic interests in order to run afoul of the Commerce Clause,” for use by the Biden administration to challenge a state law that deports illegal aliens

• Crown Castle Fiber, L.L.C. v. City of Pasadena, 76 F.4th 425 (5th Cir. 2023)
• DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) ***
• Ga. Latino All. for Hum. Rts. v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2012) ***
• Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954)
• Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)
• Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
• Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023)
• Hernandez v. Mesa, 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2018)
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Lab’ys., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985)
• Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)
• Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840)
• INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
• Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,, 543 U.S. 335 (2005)
• Japan Line, Ltd. v. Los Angeles Cnty., 441 U.S. 434 (1979) ****
• Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. McCraw, 1:23-cv-01537 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2023)
• Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2013)
• Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
• Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976)
• Molina v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 20 F.4th 166 (5th Cir. 2021) (district courts may “grant summary judgment sua sponte” upon granting “the parties ten days’ notice”)
• Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) (sports gambling decision, cited only to note that it reversed the next case)
• Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Christie, 926 F. Supp. 2d 551 (D.N.J. 2013) (violation of the Supremacy Clause is automatically irreparable harm)
• Nat’l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999)
• Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)
• New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (irreparable injury established “by a showing that the challenged state statute is flagrantly and patently violative of” the Supremacy Clause)
• Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)
• Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022)
• Piazza’s Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 448 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2006) **
• Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 236 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (“[T]he structure of the immigration statutes makes it impossible for the State to determine which [noncitizens] are entitled to residence, and which eventually will be deported.”).
• Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
• Rest. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 66 F.4th 593 (5th Cir. 2023)
• Rest. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2023 WL 4375518 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2023)
• Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)
• Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008)
• Schrader v. Dist. Att’y of York Cnty., 74 F.4th 120 (3d Cir. 2023)
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948)
• Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915)
• U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) **
• United States v. Abbott, 87 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2023) **
• United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012)
• United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm exists from an “alleged constitutional infringement” because “the interest of preserving the Supremacy Clause is paramount”)
• United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
• United States v. Delgado-Garcia, 374 F.3d 1337 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
• United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
• United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1982)
• United States v. Hernandez-Guerrero, 963 F. Supp. 933 (S.D. Cal. 1997)
• United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013) ***

  NOTE that this is from the Fourth Circuit: finding “irreparable injury to the nation’s foreign policy” if a State’s own immigration law “take[s] effect”

• United States v. Texas, 557 F. Supp. 3d 810 (W.D. Tex. 2021) ** (“Because the United States has established a likelihood that the [state law] violates the Supremacy Clause, irreparable harm is presumed.”)
• United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982)
• Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)
• Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 726 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2013) **

• This splintered Fifth Circuit en banc decision invalidated a local ordinance that criminalized housing noncitizens under conflict preemption, even though the city argued that its ordinance . Id. at 529, 531. Liberal judges on the Fifth Circuit prevailed with their approach that “significant complexities involved in enforcing federal immigration law” underlie “the importance of the federal government’s supervisory role over the limited contexts” where “the Attorney General has delegated arrest authority to state officers.” Id. at 531 (citation omitted). The court reasoned that “by giving state officials authority to act as immigration officers outside the limited circumstances specified by federal law,” the challenged anti-illegal alien ordinance “interfere[d] with the careful balance struck by Congress.” Id.

• Washington Cnty. v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981)
• Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)
• Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968) ** - federal government exclusively dictates foreign policy

Constitutional Provisions

Relevant constitutional provisions include:

• U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 - federal government “make[s] Treaties,” commissions and receives “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,” “regulate[s] commerce with foreign nations,” and “establish[es] a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
• U.S. Const. art. I, § 10 - States are prohibited from engaging in foreign policy: “[n]o state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation” and “[n]o State shall,” without the consent of Congress, “enter into any agreement or Compact” with “a foreign Power.”
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 - “the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
• U.S. Const. art. IV - Supremacy Clause