From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Biden

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 16, 2021
2 F.4th 1284 (9th Cir. 2021)

Summary

vacating as moot

Summary of this case from Rai v. Biden

Opinion

No. 19-36020

07-16-2021

John DOE #1 ; Juan Ramon Morales; Jane Doe, # 2; Iris Angelina Castro; Blake Doe; Brenda Villarruel; Latino Network; Jane Doe, # 3; Gabino Soriano Castellanos, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ; Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of State; Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.

Kevin M. Fee, Scott D. Stein, and Tacy Fletcher Flint, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Naomi A. Igra, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California; John L. Gibbons, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Stephen W. Manning and Tess Hellgren, Innovation Law Lab, Portland, Oregon; Jesse Bless, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Washington, D.C.; Karen C. Tumlin and Esther H. Sung, Justice Action Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; August E. Flentje, Special Counsel; William C. Peachey, Director; Brian C. Ward, Senior Litigation Counsel; Courtney E. Moran, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.


Kevin M. Fee, Scott D. Stein, and Tacy Fletcher Flint, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Naomi A. Igra, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California; John L. Gibbons, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Stephen W. Manning and Tess Hellgren, Innovation Law Lab, Portland, Oregon; Jesse Bless, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Washington, D.C.; Karen C. Tumlin and Esther H. Sung, Justice Action Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; August E. Flentje, Special Counsel; William C. Peachey, Director; Brian C. Ward, Senior Litigation Counsel; Courtney E. Moran, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Jay S. Bybee, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Motion to Vacate Panel Opinion (Dkt. 96) is GRANTED in part . The panel opinion published at 984 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2020) is VACATED . The matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions "to vacate as moot the [November 26, 2019] order granting a preliminary injunction." See Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab , 594 U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 2520313, at *1 (June 21, 2021). The petition for rehearing en banc (Dkt. 80) is DENIED as moot.


Summaries of

Doe v. Biden

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 16, 2021
2 F.4th 1284 (9th Cir. 2021)

vacating as moot

Summary of this case from Rai v. Biden
Case details for

Doe v. Biden

Case Details

Full title:John Doe #1; Juan Ramon Morales; Jane Doe, # 2; Iris Angelina Castro…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 16, 2021

Citations

2 F.4th 1284 (9th Cir. 2021)

Citing Cases

United States v. Warren

Given Warren's vaccination status and the totality of the circumstances, as well as "the deference we must…

United States v. Miller

Moreover, the court considered Miller's rehabilitative efforts and reasonably concluded that, though his…