Cases

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge On February 18, 2019, a coalition of sixteen states filed suit against Defendants *936Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; the United States; the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"); Patrick M. Shanahan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to subsidize the cost of co-payments and deductibles for lower-income people. In turn, the Act requires the federal government to make advance payments to the companies to cover the cost of this subsidy. The legab

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 19-16299 COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF D.C. No. DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII; 4:19-cv-00872- STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF HSG MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MARYLAND; DANA NESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 19-960 (RDM) DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs—the states of California, Oregon, and Minnesota—challenge Executive Order 13,771 and the implementing G

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF No. 25-3293 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; D.C. No. 3:25-cv-03698-SI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, Northern District

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP'S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE COMPLAINT [Docket No. 28]; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP'S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [Docket No. 28] This matter is before the Court on Defendant Donald J. Trump's Special Motion To Dismiss/Strike Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford's Complaint Pursuant To Anti-SLAPP Statute ("Specia

On March 23, 2018, Defendants Donald J. Trump ("President Trump"), in his official capacity as President of the United States; James N. Mattis, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., in his official capacity as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Richard V. Spencer, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; Ryan D. McCarthy, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Army; Heather A. Wilson, in her offi

LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge *1053TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1053 STATEMENT...1056 1. The Immigration and Nationality Act and Parole Generally...1056 2. The Complaint...1056 2.1 September-December 2014: The Creation of the CAM Parole

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 180] Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Donald J. Trump’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s Motion..for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (“Def. Mot.”), ECF No. 180. The motio

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge On February 19, 2019, Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition ("SBCC") (collectively, "Citizen Group Plaintiffs" or "Citizen Groups") filed suit against Defendants Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Patrick M. Shanahan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE; AND APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Art Cohen’s Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment of Class Counsel. (Dkt. No. 39.) Plaintiffs proposed Class consists of: [A]ll persons who purchased

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Once again, the parties are before the Court regarding a rule issued recently by the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security. The rule, in combination with a Presidential proclamation, makes anyone who crosses the southern border of the United States somewhere other than a designated port of entry ineligible for asylum. Plaintiffs previously asked the Cour

Because the Court's temporary restraining order concluded that the Immigration Organizations had established serious questions going to the merits of their notice-and-comment claims, ECF No. 43 at 27-29, it follows that Defendants also have shown serious questions going to the merits. Cf. Leiva-Perez , 640 F.3d at 970 (expla

ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARDS [10cv940, ECF Nos. 589, 590.] [13cv2519, ECF Nos. 294, 295.] Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge On February 1

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge The Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA") "deals with one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation's history: welcoming homeless refugees to our shores," and it "give[s] statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns." 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 (Sept. 6, 1979). As part of that commitment, Congress has clearly commanded in the INA that

ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA’S AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S MOTIONS TO ENJOIN SECTION 9(a) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13768 William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This ease involves Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which, in addition to outlining a number of immigration enforcement policies, purports

OPINION PER CURIAM: For the third time, we are called upon to assess the legality of the President’s efforts to bar over 150 million nationals of six designated countries 1 from entering the United States or being issued immigrant visas that they w

Dismissing as moot the challenge to Executive Order No. 13,780, decision by published per curiam order. Judge Niemeyer concurred in part and dissented in part from the order dismissing as moot, in which Judge Shedd and Judge Agee joined. ORDER PER CURIAM: The Supreme Court held, by order dated October 10, .2017, that the appeal of ou

OPINION PER CURIAM: We are asked to review the district court’s modified preliminary injunction, which enjoins the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13780 against (1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurance

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION On April 25, 2017, I entered a preliminary injunction against Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,”, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (the “Executive Order”). Prelimi