No. 20-962
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
Tags: administrative-procedure administrative-rulemaking homeland-security immigration-law immigration-nationality-act inadmissibility notice-and-comment public-charge standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA SocialSecurity DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA SocialSecurity DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule.
2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility are proper parties to challenge the final rule
Docket Entries
2021-03-09
Joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-03-09
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2021-02-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)
Attorneys
City and County of San Francisco
Sara Jennifer Eisenberg — San Francisco City Attorney's Office, Respondent
State of Washington
Noah Guzzo Purcell — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Petitioner