Case ID: f-appx_650/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF TECHNOLOGY WORKERS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Appellee.
    No. 15-5239
    September Term, 2015
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: May 13, 2016
    
      John Michael Miaño, Law Office of John Miaño, Summit, NJ, Dale Lee Wilcox, Judicial Watch, Inc., Michael Meriwether Hethmon, Senior Counsel, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Glenn Matthew Girdharry, Assistant Director, Erez Reuveni, Joshua Samuel Press, Esquire, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Leon Fresco, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Benjamin Charles Mizer, Solicitor, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Anthony T. Caso, John C. Eastman,' Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman University School of Law, Orange, CA, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Amicus Curiae for Appellant.
    Lawrence J. Joseph, Attorney, Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, DC, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund Amicus Curiae for Appellant.
    Before: Kavanaugh, Millett, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.
   JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appeal be DISMISSED.

The challenges to the 2008 Rule raised by plaintiff on appeal — including the argument that the 2008 Rule reopened the 1992 Rule — are moot because the 2008 Rule is no longer in effect. We therefore dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment of the District Court. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc,, 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 181,184-88 (D.C.Cir.2008).

Pursuant to D.C, Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.