|
July 14, 2023
Several cases dismissed after United States v. Texas
In the three weeks since the Texas decision was released, state plaintiffs in three separate lawsuits voluntarily dismissed their cases. Two of the dismissed cases were copycats, challenging the same policy guidance at issue in Texas: one brought by Arizona, Montana and Ohio; and the other by Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. [There is yet another Texas copycat case that has not yet been dismissed: the one brought by a few Texas sheriffs who are represented by Attorney General of Kansas Kris Kobach, in his personal capacity. If you think that sounds odd, you would be correct; but Kobach has a long history of cultivating a lucrative side hustle losing lawsuits on behalf of anti-immigrant government entities and officials.]
The third case voluntarily dismissed, however, was not a copycat—West Virginia dismissed its lawsuit (on which we reported a few months ago) attempting to force the Biden Administration to restart the Remain in Mexico program—demonstrating recognition that, more generally, Texas has made it more difficult for red states to challenge immigration policies they don’t like.
Judge orders Biden Administration to give FL & LA identifying information of some asylees
We have previously reported on Louisiana and Florida’s extraordinary efforts—in the context of their lawsuit challenging the asylum processing rule issued in March 2022—to obtain the names and other identifying information of asylum seekers living within their borders, purportedly to prove that the states are “injured” by those individuals’ presence (thereby giving the states standing). After extensive briefing and an oral argument, Judge Joseph ordered the federal government to provide counsel for Florida and Louisiana the names, dates of birth, A number, and addresses of all noncitizens who: (a) have been granted asylum under the challenged regulation; and (b) provided DHS a most recent address in either of those two states. The information will be subject to a protective order limiting who can have access to it.
Unfortunately, because Judge Joseph only gave his decision orally, we don’t yet know much else about what he ordered. We also don’t know how many individuals’ personal information has been shared. Regardless, the privacy implications of the order that DHS produce the personal information of third parties is troubling.
* * * * *
As always, we’ll keep you posted on these and other cases.
Thanks for reading,
Esther Sung
Legal Director
| 
