IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AMARILLO DIVISION 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

ALEJANDRO MA YORK.AS, in his 

official capacity as Secretary of 

Homeland Security, et al. , 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

2:22-CV-094-Z 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Defendants' Motion to 

Transfer ("Motion") (ECF No. 73), filed on August 5, 2022. Having considered the Motion, 

pleadings, and relevant law, the Court DENIES the Motion. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 8, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' initial motion to dismiss or transfer this 

case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ("D.D.C."). See ECF No. 68. 

Defendants now ask the Court to reconsider its ruling in light of Eiden v. Texas - a case this Court 

expressly considered notwithstanding inadequate briefing by the parties. See id. at 6 n.4. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not officially provide for a motion for 

reconsideration. Shepherd v. Int 'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). A request to 

reconsider an interlocutory order has been construed to fall under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b). Dos Santos v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Dist. , 651 F. Supp. 2d 550,553 (N.D. 

Tex. 2009). Rule 54(b) states: "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 818
fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised 

at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims." 

"Although the precise standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) is 

unclear, whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the court." Dos Santos, 651 

F. Supp. 2d at 553. " [C]onsiderations similar to those under Rules 59 and 60 inform the Court's 

analysis. " Id. "The Court's discretion to reconsider its interlocutory ruling is not limited by the 

heightened standards of other rules governing reconsideration of final orders .... " Butler v. 

Collins, No. 3: 18-CV-00037-E, 2022 WL 717278, at* 1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2022). 

ANALYSIS 

Defendants argue "reconsideration is warranted based on the Supreme Court's 

interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 following the Fifth Circuit's decision in Texas [v. Eiden]." ECF 

No. 73 at 3. Specifically, Defendants assert the Court erred by holding 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) 

and 1252(e)(3) do not require this case to be transferred to the D.D.C. Id. at 4. The Court will 

address Defendants' arguments below. In doing so, the Court will not revisit arguments previously 

addressed in its July 8, 2022 Opinion and Order. 

A. The Text and Structure of Section 1252 Support the Court's Conclusion 

Eva! uating Section 1252 in context, the Court held Section 1252 does not require this action 

to be transferred to the D.D.C. See generally ECF No. 68; see also Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 

528, 53 7, 539-40 (2015). The text and structure of Section 1252 indicate it does not govern cases 

in which a State sues to challenge an interim final rule, but rather applies to actions involving 

individual aliens. 1 

1 Defendants read the Court's holding to require a final order of removal as a prerequisite before Section 1252 applies. 

See generally ECF Nos. 73 , 77. That is not so. The Court acknowledged the title of Section 1252 " indicates the section 

applies to individual aliens (who are subject to orders of removal) rather than programmatic decisions." ECF No. 68 

at 5 (quoting Te.xas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 977 n. I I (5th Cir. 2021 ), rev 'don other grounds, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022)). 

2 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 819
Section 1252 is titled "Judicial review of orders of removal." That title "indicates the 

section applies to individual aliens (who are subject to orders of removal) rather than programmatic 

decisions." Texas, 20 F.4th at 977 n.11; see also Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 

224, 234 ( 1998) ("[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section are tools available for the 

resolution of doubt about the meaning of a statute." (internal marks omitted)); House v. 

Commissioner, 453 F.2d 982, 988 (5th Cir. 1972) (noting "meaning should be given to the section 

headings of a statute"). Section 1252 is broken into additional sections, each addressing various 

decisions, actions, and proceedings involving individual aliens.2 Section l 252(a) addresses 

removal orders generally, identifies particular types of individual determinations, decisions, and 

removal orders not subject to judicial review, and makes Section 1252 the sole means to review 

such orders. Section 1252(b) discusses requirements a petitioner must meet to invoke a court's 

jurisdiction to review a removal order and how such review should occur. Section 1252(c) lists 

requirements "[a] petition for review or for habeas corpus of an order of removal" must satisfy. 

Section 1252( d) limits when a court may review a final order. Section 1252( e) - titled "Judicial 

review of orders under section 1225(b)(l)" - will be discussed in depth later. Section 1252(f) 

The Court noted Section 1252(a)(2)(A) "appear[s] to apply to individual-removal decisions rather than broad, 

programmatic decisions." Id. at 6. More specifically, "Section I 252(a)(2)(A)(iv) - ' and hence the structure of the 

statute' - imply ' it applies to removal decisions affecting individual aliens and not broad programmatic decisions 

made by the Secretary of DHS." Id. at 7 (quoting Texas, 20 F.4th at 977 n.11 ). Then, the Court noted Section I 252( e) 

"also indicates it applies only to individual detenninations" because " [a]lthough Section 1252(e)(3) itself does not 

include language specific to individual-removal proceedings, all other sections [of Section 1252(e)] . . . do." Id. 

at 7, 8; see also id. at 8 ("The text Defendants invoke .. . is surrounded by language affecting only individual aliens."). 

The Court thus concluded: "Almost all the specific tenns listed in Section 1252 refer to removal, removal orders, or 

removal proceedings." Id. at 9 (emphasis added). By applying Section 1252 to things of the same general kind and 

class mentioned - i. e., decisions and proceedings related to individual aliens rather than challenges to broad, 

programmatic decisions brought by States - the Court denied Defendants' request to transfer this action. See id. 

2 Defendants highlight cases involving non-State, organizational plaintiffs and argue Section 1252 applies to such 

organizations. The Court agrees. But courts evaluate non-State, organizational plaintiffs' standing with reference to 

individual aliens' standing. See Make the Road N. Y. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("Whether aggrieved 

individuals sue on their own or band together through a representative association does not change the nature of the 

lawsuit as seeking to remedy the individual members ' injuries arising from the Expansion Designation." (emphasis 

added)); Am. Immigration lawyers Ass 'n v. Reno, 199 F.3d 1352, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("We hold that the 

organizational plaintiffs lacked standing to litigate the rights of aliens not parties to the lawsuits .... "). 

3 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 820
prohibits courts from awarding injunctive relief except to "an individual alien against whom 

proceedings ... have been initiated" and from "enjoin[ing] the removal of any alien pursuant to a 

final order" under certain circumstances. And Section 1252(g) is a catch-all provision denying 

courts jurisdiction to hear "any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the 

decision ... to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders." 

In the same way, the provisions of Section 1252(a)(2)(A) - which refers to 

Section 1252( e ) - do not appear to apply when a State challenges a broad, programmatic decision. 

"Section 1252(a)(2)(A) repeatedly refers to an 'individual determination,' § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i), 

'individual aliens,' § l 252(a)(2)(A)(iii), and to the provisions of § l 225(b )(1) that apply to 

inspection and asylum for individual aliens. " Texas, 20 F.4th at 977 n.11. And other subsections 

repeatedly reference individual proceedings. See id. (discussing Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and 

1252(a)(2)(D)). Therefore, all sections surrounding Section 1252(a)(2)(A)(iv) - "and hence the 

structure of the statute" - imply " it applies to removal decisions affecting individual aliens and 

not broad programmatic decisions made by the Secretary of DHS." Id. 

Section l 252(e) - titled "Judicial review of orders under section 1225(b)(l)" - also 

indicates it applies only to individual-related decisions and proceedings. See United States v. 

Lauderdale County, 914 F.3d 960, 965 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining "section headings . . . can be 

used as evidence when interpreting the operative text of the statute"). Section 1252(e)(l) prohibits 

a court from awarding equitable relief " in any action pertaining to an order to exclude an alien" 

( except as otherwise authorized by Section 1252) and governs class certification. Section 

1252( e )(2) permits aliens to challenge certain determinations made under Section 1225(b )(I) 

through petitions for habeas corpus. Section 1252( e )(3) - titled "Challenges on validity of the 

system" - is the only provision to omit individual-focused language. Section 1252(e)(4) limits 

4 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 821
the remedies a court may order if it makes certain findings in the removal context. And Section 

l252(e)(5) limits the scope of a court's inquiry "to whether [a removal] order in fact was issued 

and whether it relates to [a] petitioner," stating "[t]here shall be no review of whether the alien is 

actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal." 

Although Section 1252(e)(3) itself does not include language specific to decisions or 

proceedings related to individual aliens, all other sections - 1252(e)(l), 1252(e)(2), 1252(e)(4), 

and 1252(e)(5) - do. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e). To read Section 1252(e)(3) as stripping 

all but the D.D.C. of jurisdiction to hear an Administrative Procedure Act challenge brought by a 

State does not comport with the text of Section 1252, taken as a whole and provided proper context. 

The text Defendants invoke - "O]udicial review of determinations under section 1225(b) of this 

title and its implementation is available in an action instituted in the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia" - is surrounded by language affecting only individual aliens. Id. 

§ 1252(e)(3); see also Texas, 20 F.4th at 977 n.11; Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass 'n, 199 F.3d at 

1359 ("From all we can gather, Congress must have contemplated that lawsuits challenging 

[implementation of Section 1225(b)(l)] would be brought, if at all, by individual aliens 

who ... were aggrieved by the statute's implementation."). "If Congress indeed meant to make 

[Section 1252(e)(3)] an all-encompassing ban" on a State's ability to litigate claims related to 

Section 1225(b)(l) but unrelated to any individual alien in a venue other than the D.D.C., "one 

would have expected a clearer indication of that intent." Yates, 574 U.S. at 540. 

B. Biden v. Texas Reinforces the Court's Conclusions 

Defendants argue Eiden v. Texas forecloses this Court's holding that 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and 1252(e)(3) do not require the Court to transfer this case to the D.D.C. 

ECF No. 73 at 4. Defendants read Eiden to hold "that provisions of Section 1252 apply to 

5 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 822
programmatic claims and claims brought by States." Id. at 8. The Court disagrees: Eiden instead 

supports the Court's interpretation and holding. 

1. This Court's holding does not contradict Eiden v. Texas 

Defendants argue the Supreme Court foreclosed the Court's holding when it held "section 

1252(f)(l) ' generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials 

to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified 

statutory provisions. "' Eiden, 142 S. Ct. at 2538 (quoting Garlandv. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 

2057, 2065 (2022)). Like this case, Eiden was not a suit brought by or on behalf of individual 

aliens, but by States. See generally id. Therefore, Defendants argue, the whole of Section 1252 

must apply to this case - a case unrelated to decisions or proceedings involving 

individual aliens. ECF No. 73 at 4- 5. 

But Defendants' argument and Eiden only reinforce the Court's conclusion. 

Section 1252(f)(l) prohibits the Court from enjoining or restraining the operation of relevant 

provisions unless the Court does so "with respect to the application of such provisions to an 

individual alien against whom [removal] proceedings ... have been initiated." That is, 

Section 1252(f)(l) limits the Court's equitable powers to relief regarding decisions and 

proceedings to which the Court determined Section 1252 applies. Moreover, Section 1252(f)(l) 

applied in Eiden because the provision applies " [r]egardless of the nature of the action or claim or 

of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action. " 

2. Eiden v. Texas supports this Court's interpretive method 

Defendants argue the titles of Section 1252 and its many subsections should not inform the 

Court's analysis. See ECF No. 73 at 6- 7. Defendants note "Section 1252(a)(2)(A)(iv) says 

nothing about individual removal decisions" and, therefore, is "not limited to individual 

noncitizens challenging their expedited removal orders." Id. at 6, 9. Defendants also acknowledge 

6 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 823
Section 1252( e )(3) does not use individual decision-focused language. Id. at 6. Thus, various 

section titles and context gleaned from other provisions "cannot override the more specific text of 

Section 1252(a)(2)(A) and (e)(3)." Id. at 6. 

But Defendants cannot be correct. Section 1252(e)(3)(A) - the provision at issue here -

states: "Judicial review of determinations under section 1225(b) of this title and its implementation 

is available in an action instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." 

Biden involved Section 1225(b)(2)(C). Under Defendants' view, Section 1252(e)(3)(A)'s text -

removed from statutory context - would require cases involving Section l 225(b )(2)(C), such as 

Biden, to be filed in the D.D.C. Yet the United States Supreme Court remanded Eiden to this Court. 

Biden, 142 S. Ct. at 2548. The Court will not disregard all context the various titles and provisions 

of Section 1252 provide - whether they directly apply to Sections 1252(a)(2)(A)(iv) and (e)(3) 

or contextualize those provisions. Accordingly, Defendants' argument fails. 

C. The Court's Interpretation Does Not Nullify Other Provisions of Section 1252 

Defendants argue limiting Section 1252 to claims by individual aliens challenging their 

orders of removal renders several provisions nullities. See ECF No. 73 at 10- 11. Defendants read 

the Court's July 8, 2022 Opinion and Order to hold Section 1252 only applies when an individual 

alien subject to a final removal order sues. See id. at 10- 12. But the Court did not hold a final order 

ofremoval is a prerequisite to suit. Instead, the Court held Section 1252 does not require transfer 

of an action in which a State sues to challenge an interim final rule - such as in this case - rather 

than a case in which decisions and proceedings related to individual aliens are at issue. 

See generally ECF No. 68. Defendants' arguments thus fail. 

7 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 824
CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion. 

SO ORDERED. 

September J!/_, 2022 

8 

SMARYK 

!STRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 78 Filed 09/14/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 825