FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
C ITY AND C OUNTY OF SAN FR ANC ISC O; C OUNTY OF SANTA C LAR A, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER

VIC ES, a fe d e ra l a ge nc y ; U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY, a fe de ra l a ge nc y ; KEVIN K. M C ALEENAN, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Ac ting Se c re t ary

of the Unite d State s De p a

rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity ; KENNETH T. C UC C INELLI, in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s Ac ting Dire c tor of Unite d State s C itiz e nship a nd Im m igrat ion Se rvic e s, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 19-17213

D.C . No. 4:19-c v-04717-PJH Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Oakla nd
ORDER

STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA; DISTR IC T OF C O LUM B IA; STATE OF M AINE; C OM M ONW EALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF OR EGON, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, No. 19-17214 D.C . No. 4:19-c v-04975-PJH Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Oakla nd 

# F IL ED
DEC 5 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSv.

U.S. DEPAR T M E NT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY, a

fe de ra l a ge nc y ; UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER

VIC ES, a fe d e ra l a ge nc y ; KEVIN K. M C ALEENAN, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Ac ting Se c re t ary

of the Unite d State s De p a

rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity ; KENNETH T. C UC C INELLI, in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s Ac ting Dire c tor of Unite d State s C itiz e nship a nd Im m igrat ion Se rvic e s, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts.
STATE OF WASHINGTON; C OM M ONW EALTH OF VIR GINIA; STATE OF C OLOR

ADO; STATE OF DELAWAR E; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF M AR

YLAND; C OM M ONW EALTH OF M ASSAC HUSETTS; DANA NESSEL, Attorne y Ge ne ra l on be ha l f of the Pe ople of M ic higa

n; STATE OF M INNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JER SEY; STATE OF NEW M EXIC O; STATE OF R

HODE ISLAND; STATE OF HAW AI’ I,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. U.S. DEPAR T M E NT OF HOM ELAND No. 19-35914 D.C . No. 4:19-c v-05210-R M P Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, R ic hla n d

2SEC UR ITY, a fe de ra l a ge nc y ; KEVIN K. M C A LEENAN, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Ac ting Se c re ta

ry of the Unite d State s De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity ; UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER

VIC ES, a fe d e ra l a ge nc y ; KENNETH T. C UC C INELLI, in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s Ac ting Dire c tor of Unite d State s C itiz e nship a nd Im m igrat ion Se rvic e s, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts.
B e fore : B YB EE, IKUTA, a nd OW ENS, C irc u it Judge s. B YB EE, C irc uit Judge : Sinc e 1882, whe n the C ongre s s e na c te d the first c om pre he nsive im

m igration sta tute , U.S. la

wha s prohibite d the a dm ission to the Unite d Stat e s of “ any

pe rson
una ble to ta ke c are of him s e lf or he rse lf without be c om ing a public c ha

rge . ” Ac t of Aug. 3, 1882, c h. 376, § 2, 22 Sta t. 214 (1882). Although the pre c ise form ulat ion of this provision has be e n am e nde d re gula rly in the suc c e e ding c e ntury
and a qua rte r, the ba sic prohibition a n d the phra s e “ public c ha rge ” re m a ins. M ost
re c e ntly , in the Ille ga l Im m i gra tion R e form

and Im m i grant R e sponsibility

Ac t of 1996 (IIR IR

A ), C ongre ss a

m e nde d the Im

m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t (INA) to provide tha

t “ [a ] ny a lie n who, in the

opinion of the

c onsula r offic e r at the tim e of
a pplic a tion for a visa , or in the opinion of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l at the tim e of 3a

pplic a tion for a d

m ission or a djustm e nt of sta tus, is like ly

a t a ny tim e to be c om e a public c ha

rge is ina dm issible
. ” 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(4)(A). In m aking this de te rm i nation, “ the c onsula r offic e r or the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l sha ll a

t a m inim um ” take five fa c t o rs into a c c ount: a ge ; he a lth; fa m ily sta tus; a sse ts, re sourc e s , a

n d fina nc ia l sta tus; a nd e duc a tion a

nd skills. Id. § 1182(a )(4)(B )(i). Unde r longsta nding pra c tic e , c onsula

r offic e rs a

nd the Attorne y

Ge n e ra l c onside r the se fa c tors unde r a “ tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s” te st. In 1999, theIm

m igrat i on a

n d Natura l iz a tion Se rvic e (INS), providing guida n c e to the public and INS fie ld offic e rs, de fine d “ public c ha rge ” a s an “ a lie n . . . who is like ly

to be c om e . . . prim arily

de p e nde nt on thegove rnm e nt for subsiste n c e ” a s de m onstra te d by e ithe r “ institutiona

l iz a tion for long-te rm

c are a t gove rnm e nt e xpe nse ” or “ re c e ipt of publicc a sh a ssista nc e for inc om e
m a inte na nc e .” Fie ld Guida

nc e on De porta

bility and Ina d m issibility

on Public C ha rge Grounds, 64 Fe d. R e g. 28,689, 28,689 (M ay 26, 1999) ( 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om i tte d). Although INS de te rm ine d tha t the
re c e ipt of c ash be n e fits re c e ive d unde r a public progra

m would be c onside re d a fa c t or in de te rm ining whe the r a n a lie n wa s like l y

to be c om e a public c ha

rge , it sta te d tha t non-c ash be ne fits would not be ta ke n into a c c ount for public -c ha rge purpose s . Id. 4In August 2019, following notic e and c om m e n t , the De pa

rtm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity

a dopte d a

ne w rule , re de fining the te rm “ public c h arge ” to
re quire a c onside ration of not only c ash be ne fits, but a lso c e rta in non-c ash be ne fits. Ina d

m issibility

on Public C ha

rge Grounds, 84 Fe d. R e g. 41,292, 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019) (Final R

ule ). Unde r DHS’ s Fina l R u le a public c ha

rge is “ an a lie n who re c e ive s one or m ore public be ne fits . . . for m ore tha n 12 m onths in the
a ggre g a t e within a

ny 36-m onth pe riod.” Id. a t 41,501. In turn, DHS de fine d

“ public be ne fits.” C onsiste nt with the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e , DHS still c onside rs
re c e ipt of c a s h a ssista

nc e from Supple m e nta l Se c urity

Inc om e (SSI); Te m

pora ry Assista nc e for Ne e dy

Fa m ilie s (TANF); a

n d fe de ra l, sta

te , or loc a l ge ne ra l
a ssista nc e progra

m s to be public be ne fits. To tha t list, DHS a d de d non-c a sh
a ssista nc e re c e ive d through the

Supple m e nta l Nutrition Assista nc e Program (SNAP), Se c t ion 8 housing a s sista nc e , Se c t ion 8 proje c t-ba se d re nta l a ssista nc e , M e d ic a id (with c e rta in e x c e ptions), a nd Se c tion 9 public

housing. Id. DHS’ s rule
e xe m pts public be n e fits re c e ive d for e m e rge nc y m e dic a l c onditions, bene fits
re c e ive d unde r the Individua l s with Disa b i litie s Educ a tion Ac t , a

nd sc hool-ba se d
se rvic e s or be ne fits. Id. It a l so e xe m pts thosebe ne fits re c e ive d by a lie ns unde r 21 y e ars of a ge , wom e n during pre gna nc y , a nd m e m be rs of the arm e d

forc e s a n d the ir fa m ilie s . Id. DHS re pe a te d tha t “ [t] he de te rm i nation of a n a lie n’ s like lihood of 5be c om ing a

public c ha

rge a t a ny tim e in the future m

u st be ba se d on the tota lity of the a lie n’ s c irc um s ta

nc e s .” Id . at 41,502. Prior to the Fina l R

ule ta king e ffe c t

in Oc tobe r 2019, va

rious sta te s , m unic ipa litie s and orga

niz a t ions brought suits in C a lifornia and W a shington
se e k ing a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion a ga inst theim ple m e ntation of therule . In Nos. 19-17213 a

nd 19-17214, C a lifornia , M a ine , Ore gon, Pe nnsy lva nia , a nd the Distric t of C olum bia ; the C i ty

an d C ounty

of San Fran c isc o a

n d the C o unty of Santa

C la ra ;
and va rious orga

niz a t ions brought suit in the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia

a ga inst the U nite d State s unde r the Due Proc e s s C la use of the Fifth Am e n d

m e nt; the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t (APA), 5 U.S.C . § 706; a nd the De c la

ra tory Judgm e nt Ac t, 28 U.S.C . §§ 2201–02. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion on the

ba sis of the APA, e ffe c t ive a ga inst im ple m e ntat ion of the rule in the p la intiff sta

te s. C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o v . U.S. C i tize nship & Immigration Serv

s . , 2019 W L 5100718 (N.D. C a l. Oc t. 11, 2019). In No. 19- 35914, thirte e n sta

te s— W a shington, Virginia , C olora do, De la ware , Ha w a i‘ i , Illinois, M ary la

nd, M a ssa c huse tts, M inne sota , Ne va da , Ne w Je rse y , Ne w M e xic o,
and R hode Isla nd— file d suit in the

Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington a ga i nst DHS unde r the Due Proc e ss C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt a nd the APA. The distric t
c ourt gra nte d a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion on the

ba sis of the APA c la im s a nd issue d a 6nationwideinjunc tion. W ashington v . U.S. De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 2019 W L 5100717 (E.D. W a sh. Oc t. 11, 2019). DHS se e ks a

sta y of both pre lim ina

ry injunc tions. 1 Our a

uthority to issuea sta y of a pre lim ina

ry injunc t ion is c irc um sc ribe d. Ne v e rthe le ss, for the re a sons
e xpla ine d be low, we will gra nt the sta y . DHS ha s shown a strong like lihood of
suc c e ss on the m e rits, tha t it will suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm , a n d tha t the ba la nc e of the e quitie s and public inte re st fa vor a sta y . Se e N k e n v . Holde r , 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). I. B AC K GR OUND AND PR OC EDURE W e be gin with the

gove rning sta

tutory fra m e work, the propose d c h ange to this fra m e work, a

nd the proc e e dings be low. A. Statutory

Frame w ork The INA re quire s a ll a lie ns who se e k la wful a dm ission to the

Unite d State s, or those a lre a dy

pre s e nt but se e king to be c om e la wful pe rm ane n t re side nts (LPR s), to prove tha

t the y are “ not ina dm issible .” 8 U.S.C
. § 1361; se e also id. §§ 1225(a ), 1255(a ). Se c t ion 212 of the INA lists the

grounds on whic h a

n a lie n m ay

be
a djudge d ina dm issible
. Id . § 1182(a )(1)–(10). One of the grounds for

1 For c la rity , we will re fe r to the pla intiffs be low a s “ the State s ” and the de fe nda n ts a s “ DHS.” 7ina d

m issibility

is a de te rm ination tha

t the a l ie n is like ly

to be c om e a

“ public
c ha rge .” Id . § 1182(a )(4). Se c tion 212(a)(4) of the INA re a ds a s follows: (4) PUB LIC C HAR GE. — (A) IN GENER

AL.— Any a lie n who, in the

opinion of the c o nsula

r offic e r a t

the tim e of a

pplic a tion for a

visa , or in the opinion of the

Attorne y Ge ne ra l at

the tim e of a pplic ation for a d

m ission or a djustm e nt of sta tus, is like ly a t a ny tim e to be c om e a

public c ha

rge is ina dm issible
. (B ) FAC TOR S TO B E TAKEN INTO AC C OUNT.— (i) In de te rm ining whe the r an a lie n is ina dm issibleunde r this pa ra gra ph, the c onsula

r offic e r or the Attorne y Ge ne ra l [ 2 ] sha ll a

t a m i nim um c onside r the a lie n’ s— (I) a ge ; (II) he a lth; (III) fa m ily

sta t us; (IV) a sse ts, re sourc e s, a

n d fina nc ia l sta tus; a nd (V) e duc a tion a

nd skills. (ii) In a ddition to the

fa c tors unde r c la

use (i), the c onsula

r offic e r or the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l m ay a lso c onside r any

2 The Hom e la

nd Se c urity

Ac t of 2002 tra

nsfe rre d m

uc h of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s im

m igration a

u thority to the ne wly

c re a te d offic e of the Se c re ta ry of Hom e la nd Se c urity
. Se e In reD-J

- , 23 I. & N. De c . 572, 573–74 & n.2 (Op. Att’ y Ge n. 2003) (c iting Hom e la nd Se c urity

Ac t of 2002, Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Sta t. 531 (2003)). Though the

Attorne y Ge ne ra l re ta ins a

uthority ove r the Exe c utive Offic e for Im

m igration R e vie w , id . n.3, the Se c re ta ry of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

is now re sponsiblewith thege ne ra l a dm inistra tion a nd e nforc e m e nt of im

m igration la

w, id . n.2. 8a ffidavit of support [ 3 ] unde r se c tion 1183a of this title for purpose s of e xc lusion unde r this pa ra g ra ph. Id
. This provision is a

pplie d a t diffe re nt tim e s by

diffe re nt gove rnm e n t
a ge nc ie s. W

he n a n a l ie n se e k s a

visa to tra ve l to the Unite d State s , a De pa rtm e nt of State (DOS) c onsula

r offic e r m

ust m ake an a d

m issibility

de te rm ination. Se e 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,294 n.3. W he n a n a lie n a rrive s at a port of e ntry

without a visa , DHS m ake s tha

t de t e rm i nation. Id . An a lie n m ay a lso be de e m e d

“ ina dm issible ”
e ve n whe n the a lie n is a l re a dy in the c ountry . For e xam p le , whe n a

n a lie n se e ks a

n
a djustm e nt of sta

tus from non-im m igra nt to LPR , DHS m

ust de te rm ine tha

t the
a lie n is not inadm issible
. Se eid . And whe n a n a lie n is proc e sse d in im m igration
c ourt, the De p a

rtm e nt of Justic e (DOJ) through im m i gra tion judge s a

nd the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) m ust de te rm ine whe the r that a lie n is ina dm issible
. Id
. Though § 212 of the INA la y s out thefa c t ors a

n im m igration offic ia l m

ust
c onside r “ a t a

m inim um ” whe n m aking a

public -c ha

rge de te rm ination, theINA doe s not de fine the te rm

“ p ublic c ha

rge ,” or re stric t how offic i a ls a re to c onside r

3 An a ffidavit of support is a binding ple dge , ofte n m a de by an e m ploy e r or fa m ily m e m be r of the a lie n, to fina

nc ia lly support thea l ie n at

125 pe rc e nt of the Fe de ra l pove rty

line . 8 U.S.C . § 1183. 9a ge , he a lth, fa m ily sta t us, fina nc ia l re sourc e s, a

nd e duc a tion. Inde e d, a s e xpla ine d in m ore de ta i l be low, in the c o n te xt of im m igration la

w , the te rm

“ public c ha

rge ” ha s ha d se ve ra l m e anings. Sinc e 1999, howe ve r, the te rm ha s be e n de fine d
a c c ording to guide line s issue d by the INS Fie l d Guida

nc e on the m a tte r. Se e 1999 Fie l d Guidanc e , 64 Fe d. R e g. at 28,689. The 1 999 Fie ld Guidanc e de fine d a public c ha

rge a s a n a l ie n who “ is like ly

to be c om e (for a dm ission/a djustm e nt purpose s ) prim arily

de pe nde nt on thegove rnm e nt for subsistenc e , a s de m onstra te d by e i the r (i) the re c e ipt of publicc a sh a ssista nc e for inc om e m a inte na

nc e or (ii) institutiona

liz a tion for long-te rm

c are a t gove rnm e nt e xpe nse .” Id . (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). The 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e d id not pe rm it im m igration offic e rs to “

pla c e any we ight on the

re c e ipt of non-c a sh public be ne fits,” id. , a nd
a llowe d c onside ra tion of only c a sh-be ne fit progra

m s like SSI, TANF, and “ [s] tat e
and loc a l c a sh a s sista

nc e progra

m s tha t provide be ne fits for inc om e m a i nte na nc e ,” id . at 28,692. B
. The Propose d

Rule On Oc tobe r 10, 2018, DHS publishe d a Notic e of Propose d R ule m aking (NPR M ) indic a ting its inte nt to a ba ndon the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e and re de fine the te rm “ public c h arge .” Se e Ina dm issibility on Public C ha

rge Grounds, 83 Fe d. R e g .

1 051,114 (propose d Oc t . 10, 2018). 4 It did so a c ting unde r the a uthority ve ste d in the Se c re t ary of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

to e sta blish im m igration re gula

t ions a nd e n forc e im m igration la

w. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1103(a )(3) (“ [The Se c re t ary of Hom e la

n d Se c urity ] sha ll e sta

blish suc h re gula

tions . . . a s he de e m s ne c e ssa ry for c arry ing out his a uthority unde r the provisions of this c ha pte r.” ). The propose d rule
re de fine d the te rm “ public c ha

rge ” in two wa

y s. First, the propose d rule for the first tim e e sta blishe d a re quire d

le ngth of tim e for whic h the a lie n

would ha ve to re ly on public be ne fits be fore be ing la be le d
a public c ha

rge . Unde r the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e , a public c ha

rge wa s de fine d a s a

n individua l “ prim arily

de pe nde nt” on gove rnm e nt be ne fits, but the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e pre sc ribe d

no spe c ific tim e pe riod for whic h this de te rm ination should be m a de
. Se e 64 Fe d. R e g. at 28,689, 28,692. Unde r the ne wrule , a

n a lie n would be c o nside re d a

public c ha

rge if he or she “ re c e ive s one or m o re [de signa te d] public be ne fits . . . for m ore tha n 12 m onths in the

a ggre gate within a 36-m onth pe riod.” 83 Fe d. R e g. at 51,157–58. M ore ove r, the propose d rule c ounts e a c h

4 The propose d

rule would not c ha

nge the de finition of public c ha rge for re m ova bility de t e rm inations, only

for de te rm inations of ina d m issibility . 83 Fe d. R e g. at 51,134. And though the rule only a pplie s to DHS, DHS is c urre ntly working with DOS a

n d DOJ to e nsure tha

t a l l thre e a ge nc ie s a

pply a c onsiste nt de finition of the te rm

in the ir a d

m issibility

inquirie s. 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,294 n.3. 1 1public be ne fit re c e ive d, so tha t “ re c e i pt of two diffe re nt non-m o ne tiz a ble be ne fits in one m onth c o unts a s two m onths.” Id. a t 51,166. Se c ond, the propose d rule e xpa nde d whic h be ne fits c ontribute d to a public
c ha rge de te rm i nation. Thepropose d rule still inc l ude d those c a s h-be ne fit program s tha

t we re liste d

in the 1999 Fie l

d Guidanc e , but now a lso inc lude s
va rious in-kind progra

m s , suc h a s: (A) Supple m e nta l Nutrition Assista nc e Program

(SNAP, form e rly c a lle d ‘ ‘ Food Sta

m ps’ ’ ), 7 U.S.C . 2011 to 2036c ; (B ) Se c tion 8 Housing Assista nc e unde r the Housing C hoic e Vouc he r Progra m , a s a dm iniste re d by HUD unde r 24 C FR pa

rt 984; 42 U.S.C
. 1437f a nd 1437u; (C ) Se c tion 8 Proje c t-B a se d R e nta l Assista n c e (inc luding M ode ra t e R e ha bilita tion) unde r 24 C FR pa

rts 5, 402, 880 through 884 a nd 886; and

. . . (i) M e dic a id, 42 U.S.C . 1396 e t se q. , [with se ve ra l e xc e ptions, disc usse d be low]

. . . (iv) Subsidiz e d Housing under the Housing Ac t of 1937, 42 U.S.C
. 1437 e t se q .

1 2Id . at 51,290 (to be c odifie d at 8 C .F.R . § 212.21). 5

Additiona lly , the propose d rule a dde d othe r fa c tors for im

m igration offic e rs to c o nside r whe n m aking a public -c ha

rge de te rm ination. Therule still re quire d
c onside ra tion of thea lie n ’ s a ge , he a lth, fa m ily sta tus, fina nc i a l sta t us, e duc a tion
and skills, a s we l l a s a

ny a ffidavits of support the

a lie n pre se nts. S

e e 83 Fe d R e g. 51,178 (to be c odifie d at 8 C .F.R . § 212.22). B ut the propose d rule a lso la id out
ne w fa c tors to be a fforde d e xtra we ight. Four fa c tors we igh he avily a g a inst the
a lie n in a public -c ha

rge de te rm ination: (1) a

finding tha

t the a lie n “ is not a full-tim e stude nt a

nd is a uthoriz e d to work,” but c annot de m onstra t e “ c urre nt
e m ploy m e nt, e m ploy m e nt history , or [a ] re a sona b le prospe c t of future
e m ploy m e nt” ; (2) a

pre v ious finding of ina

dm i ssibility

on public -c ha

rge grounds; (3) a m e dic a l dia gnosis tha t would like ly

re quire e xte nsive m e dic a l tre a tm e nt or inte rfe re with the a l ie n’ s a bility to be se lf-suffic ie nt; a

nd (4) re c e ipt of be ne fits for

5 DHS a lte re d t

he Fina l R

ule to m ake c le ar that c e rta i n be ne fits we re e xe m pt from c onside ra tion, inc luding “ M e dic a id [c olle c te d ] by a lie ns unde r the a ge of 21[, M e d ic a id c olle c te d by ] pre g na n t wom e n during pre gna

n c y and during the

60-da y pe riod a fte r pre gna

nc y ,” sc h ool-ba s e d se rvic e s , Individua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ a tion Ac t (IDEA) se rvic e s, M e dic are Part D Low-Inc om e Subsidie s , a nd e m e rge n c y

m e dic a l c a

re . 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,296–97 (c odifie d at 8 C .F.R
. § 212.21). Furthe r, in c e rta in c irc um sta nc e s, the propose d rule e xc use s re c e ipt of c ove re d public be ne fits. Se e id. (c odifie d a t 8 C .F.R . § 212.21) (e xe m pting public be ne fits from

c onside ra tion whe n the re c ipie nt ha s re c e ive d c e rta in hum anita rian re lie f, the re c ipie nt or his spouse wa s in the Arm e d Forc e s, or the re c ipie nt re c e ive d a

wa ive r). 1 3m ore tha

n twe lve m onths within a

thirty -six m onth pe riod. Id . at 51,198–201 (to be c o difie d at 8 C .F.R . § 212.22). C onve rse ly , two fa c tors would we igh he avily in fa vor of the a lie n in a

public -c ha

rge de te rm ination: (1) a sse ts or house hold inc om e
ove r 250 pe rc e nt of the Fe de ra l pove rty line , a n d (2) individual inc om e ove r 250 pe rc e nt of the Fe de ra l pove rty line
. 6 Id . at 51,292 (to be c odifie d at 8 C .F.R . § 212.22(c )(2)). During the sixty -day public c o m m e n t pe riod tha

t followe d the NPRM , DHS
c olle c te d 266,077 c om

m e n ts, “ the va st m a

jority of whic h oppose d

the rule .” 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,297. On August 14, 2019, DHS publishe d the Fina l R

ule in the Fe de ra l R e giste r. Id . at 41,292. In its 216-pa ge Fina l R

u le , DHS m a de som e
c ha nge s to the propose d rule (whic h a re not re le va

nt he re ) and a ddre sse d the
c om m e n ts it re c e ive d. The Fina l R ule wa s sc he dule d to ta

ke e ffe c t on Oc tobe r 15, 2019, a nd would a

pply to a ny one a pply ing for a dm ission or a djustm e nt of sta tus
a fte r that da

te . Id. C
. The Proc e e dings 1. The N

orthe rn Distric t

of C a lifornia C

ase

6 The Fina l R

ule a dde d a

third fa c tor: priva

t e he a lth insura

nc e not subsidiz e d unde r the Afforda

ble C are Ac t. 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,504.

1 4On August 13, 2019, the C ity and C ounty of San Franc isc o a

nd the C ounty of Santa C la ra sue d se ve ra l gove rnm e nt a ge nc ie s a nd offic ia ls, inc luding U.S. C itiz e nship a

nd Im m igration Se rvic e s (USC IS), the Ac ting Dire c tor of USC IS Ke nne th T. C uc c ine lli, DHS, a nd the the n Ac t ing Dire c tor of DHS Ke vin M c A le e n an. The y

brought suit in the

Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , c la im ing tha t the propose d rule viola

te d the APA on two grounds: (1) therule wa s not m a de in a c c orda nc e with the la

w, a nd (2) the rule wa s
arbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

nd a n a buse of disc re t ion. Se e 5 U.S.C . § 706(2). Thre e da y s la te r, on August 16, 2019, C a l ifornia , M a ine , Ore gon, Pe nnsy lva nia , a nd the Distric t of C olum

bia , sue d the sa

m e de fe nda

nts in the sam e c ourt. The y c la im e d that (1) the propose d rule viola te d § 706 of theAPA be c a use (a ) it wa s not m a de in
a c c orda nc e with the INA, the IIR IR A, the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t, or sta

te he a l thc are disc re tion, (b) it wa s a

rbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

nd a n a b use of disc re tion, a

nd (2) the propose d rule viola

t e d the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e ss C la use be c a u se it de nie d e qua l prote c tion ba se d on ra c e and unc onstitutiona l a nim us.

1 5Ea c h se t of pla intiffs file d a m otion to pre lim ina

rily e njoin e nforc e m e nt of the p ropose d rule . On August 27, 2019, the distric t c ourt orde re d the two c a se s
c onsolida te d. 7 The distric t c ourt he ard ora l a rgum e nt on Oc tobe r 2, 2019, a nd on Oc tobe r 11, gra nte d the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. S

e e C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718 a

t *1, 53. The

c ourt first he ld tha

t both the C ountie s a

nd the State s ha d sta nding to sue

be c a use the y showe d im

m ine nt fina

nc ia l injury
. Id . at *46–47. It he ld tha

t the y we re in the sta

t ute ’ s z one of inte re sts be c a use , in e na c ting the public -c h arge provision of the INA, “ C ongre ss inte nde d to prote c t sta t e s a nd the ir politic a l subdivisions’ c offe rs.” Id . at *41. On the m e rits, the distric t c ourt found that the State s satisfie d the four-fa c tor te st for a pre lim i na

ry injunc tion. Se e W

inte r
v . N at. Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The c ourt he ld tha

t the Stat e s ha d a like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits for a t le a st som e of the i r c la im s. It found the State s we re like ly to suc c e ssfully show tha

t the propose d rule wa s
c ontra ry to la w be c a u se it unre a sona

bly de fine d the te rm

“ public c ha

rge ,” and thus fa ile d the se c ond ste p of the C he v ron ana ly sis. C

ity & C ty
. of San Franc isc o , 2019

7 Se ve ra l le ga l a

n d he a lth-c are orga

niz at ions we re a l so pa

rtie s to the m otion for a p re lim ina

ry injunc tion be l ow. The distric t c ourt found tha t the y fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the y we re within the

z one of inte re sts. C

ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a

t *53. The y

are not pa

rtie s to this a

ppe a l. 1 6W L 5100718, a t *28. Alte rna tive ly , the c ourt found tha t the State s ha d shown a
se rious que stion a s to whe t he r the INA una

m biguously fore c lose d the propose d
c ha nge to the de finition of public c ha rge , thus c a

using theFina l R

ule to fa il a

t C he v ron ste p one . Id . The c ourt a lso c onc l ude d tha t the State s ha d de m onstra te d a like lihood of suc c e ss on thearbitra ry -an d-c a pric ious c la im be c a

use DHS fa ile d to
a de quate ly

c onside r the a dve rse e c onom ic and public he a lth-re l a te d c osts of the propose d rule
. Id . at *34, *37. Furthe r, the c ourt found tha t the rule ’ s im

ple m e ntation would irre

pa ra bly ha rm the C ountie s and Sta

te s by c a using the m

to lose m illions of dolla

rs in fe de ra l
re im burse m e nts a

nd fa c e inc re a se d ope ra t iona l c osts. Id . at *46–49. Foc u sing on the p ublic ’ s inte re st in thec ontinue d provision of me dic a l se rvic e s a n d the pre v e n tion of c om

m unic a ble dise a se s, the distric t

c o urt found both the

ba la nc e of the e quitie s and the public inte re st we ighe d in fa vor of gra nting a n injunc tion. Id
. a t *50–51. Howe ve r, be c a use the c ourt found tha

t the State s ha d fa ile d to show why a nationwideinjunc t ion would be ne c e s sa ry , the c ourt gra

nte d a n injunc tion that a pplie d only to thosepe rsons living in pla i ntiff sta t e s or c ountie s. Id
. a t

*53. On Oc tobe r 25, 2019, DHS sought a sta y of the pre lim i na

ry injunc tion. DHS inform e d the c ourt tha t it would se e k a

ppe l late re lie f if the c o urt did not a c t by Nove m b e r 14. 1 72. The Easte rn Distric t of W ashington C

ase On August 14, 2019, W

a shington, Virginia , C olora do, De la w are , Ha wa i‘ i, Illinois, M ary la

nd, M a ssa c huse tts, M inne sota , Ne va da , Ne w Je rse y , R hode Isla nd,
and the sta

te a ttorne y

ge ne ra l on be ha lf of M ic higa n sue d USC IS, C uc c ine lli, DHS,
and M c Ale e na

n in the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington. They

a lle ge d c la im s sim ila

r to those pre se nte d

in the C a lifornia
c a se s: (1) the propose d rule viola te d the APA be c a

use (a ) it wa s not in a c c orda nc e with im m igration la

w or the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t, (b) it e xc e e de d DHS’ s sta tutory jurisdic tion or a

uthority , a

n d (c ) it wa s a

rbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

nd a n a buse of disc re tion, a

n d (2) the propose d rule viola te d the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e ss C la use be c a use it de nie d e qua l prote c tion ba se d on ra c e and unc onstitutiona l
anim us. The distric t c ourt he ard ora l a rgum e nt on Oc tobe r 3, 2019, a nd on Oc tobe r 11, gra nte d the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. S

e e W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *23. The c ourt’ s c onc lusions la rge ly m irrore d those of the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , though the re we re som e diffe re nc e s. C iting theState s’ antic ipate d
e c onom ic , a dm inistra

tive , a nd public -he a lth c osts, thec ourt he ld tha t the State s ha d sta nding a nd tha t t he m a tte r wa s ripe
. Id . at *11. Finding tha t the INA wa s
e na c te d “ to prote c t sta

te s from having to spe nd sta

te m one y to providefor 1 8im

m igra nts who c ould not provide for the m se lve s,” the c ourt c o nc lude d tha t the Stat e s we re within the

INA’ s z one of inte re sts. Id
. On the m e rits, the c ourt he ld tha t the State s ha d

shown a like lihood of
suc c e ss on the arbitra

ry -and-c a pric iousne ss c la im

and the C

h e v ron c la im , though the W a shington c o urt wa s le ss c le ar tha n the C a lifornia c ourt ha d be e n a bout a t whic h ste p of the C

he v ron ana ly sis the propose d rule would fa il. Id . at *13–17. Unlike the C a lifornia c ourt, the W a shington c ourt a lso found tha t the State s we re like ly to suc c e e d in proving tha t DHS ha d viola

t e d the R e ha

b ilita tion Ac t, a

nd tha t DHS a c te d be y ond its c ongre ssiona lly de l e gate d a

u thority in de fining se lfsuffic i e nc y . Id . at *17–18. Noting tha t “ t he Pla intiff Sta

te s provide a

strong ba sis for finding tha

t dise nrollm e n t

from non-c a sh be n e fits progra m s is pre dic ta

ble , not spe c ulative ,” and tha

t suc h dise nrollm e nt would fina n c ia lly ha rm the State s, the
c ourt found tha

t the State s would suffe r irre pa ra ble ha rm if the injunc tion we re not issue d. Id . at *20–21. On the s e sa m e grounds, thec ourt found tha t the ba la nc e of the e quitie s and public inte re st both “ tip[pe d] in fa v o r” of gra

nting a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. Id . at *21. Howe ve r, unlike the C a lifornia c ourt, the W a s hington c ourt found a ge ogra phic a lly lim ite d injunc tion unte na b le , in pa rt be c a use a lim ite d injunc tion m ight giveim

m igra n ts a n inc e ntive to m ove from unprote c t e d sta

te s to

1 9prote c te d

sta te s. Ac c ordingly , the W a s hington c ourt gra nte d the State s a
nationwideinjunc tion. Id
. a t *22–23. On Oc tobe r 25, 2019, DHS sought a sta y of the pre lim i na

ry injunc tion. DHS inform e d the c ourt tha t it would se e k a

ppe l late re lie f if the c o urt did not a c t by Nove m b e r 14. * * * B y Nove m be r 14, ne ithe r distric t

c o urt re sponde d to the re s pe c tive m otions to sta y . On Nove m

be r 15, 2019, DHS file d a m otion in this c ourt for a n e m e rge nc y sta y of the injunc tion. II. JUR ISDIC TION DHS c onte nds tha

t the pla intiffs do not ha

v e Artic le III sta

nding to sue

and that the ir c la i m s do not fa l l within the z one of inte re sts prote c te d by the INA. W e have an obliga tion to e n sure tha

t jurisdic tion e xists be fore proc e e d ing to them e rits. Se e Ste e l C

o. v . C i tize ns for a Be tte r Env ’t , 523 U.S. 83, 93–95 (1998). 8 Additiona lly , a lthough no pa rty ha s ra ise d the issue , we m ust a ddre ss whe the r

8 B oth distric t c ourts a lso he l d tha t the State s’ c la im s fa ll within the INA’ s “ z o ne of inte re sts.” Se e C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *41; W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *11. For pre se nt purpose s, be c a use the issue is c lose and ra ise s a

prude ntia l ra the r tha

n jurisdic tiona l c onc e rn, se e Bank of Am. C orp. v . C ity of Miami , 137 S. C t. 1296, 1302 (2017), we will a ssum e that the Stat e s’ c la im s sa

tisfy the re quire m e nt. 2 0DHS’ s re que st for a sta y pe n d ing a

ppe a l is m oot in light of the fa c t tha t two c ourts outside our c irc uit ha

ve a lso issue d nationwideinjunc tions, a nd a ny de c ision we issue he re would not dire c t ly a ffe c t those orde rs. W e c onc lude that, at this pre l im ina ry sta ge of the proc e e dings, theStat e s ha v e suffic ie ntly

a lle g e d grounds for Artic le III sta

nding a n d tha t DHS’ s pe tition for a

sta y is not m oot.

A. Artic le III Standing Artic le III of the C onstitution lim its the fe de ra l judic ia l powe r to the
a djudic a tion of “ C a se s” and “ C ontrove rsie s.” U.S. C O N S T . a rt. III, § 2, c l. 1. This funda m e nta l lim ita

tion “ i s founde d in c onc e rn a bout the prope r— and prope rly lim ite d— role of the c ourts in a

de m oc ra tic soc i e ty .” S

umme rs v . Earth Island Inst. , 555 U.S. 488, 492–93 (2009) (quoting W arth v

. Se ldin , 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)). “ One of the e sse n tia l e le m e nts of a le ga l c a s e or c ontrove rsy is tha t the pla i ntiff ha

ve sta nding to sue .” Trump v . Haw ai’i , 138 S. C t. 2392, 2416 (2018).

“ [B ] uilt on se

pa ra tion-of-powe rs princ iple s,” sta nding e nsure s tha

t litiga nts ha ve “ a pe rsona l sta

ke in the outc om e of the c ontrove rsy a s to justify

the e xe rc ise of the
c ourt’ s re m e dia l powe rs on the ir be ha lf.” Tow n of C he ste r v . LaroeEstate

s, Inc
. , 137 S. C t. 1645, 1650 (2017) (inte rna l c ita tions a nd a lte ra tions omi tte d).

2 1To de m onstra te Artic le III sta

nding, a pla i ntiff m

ust show a

“ c onc re te and pa rtic u la riz e d ” injury

tha t is “ fa irly tra c e a ble ” to the de fe n da

nt’ s c onduc t a

n d “ that is like ly to be re d re sse d by a favora ble judic i a l de c ision.” Spok e o, Inc . v . Robins , 136 S. C t. 1540, 1547–48 (2016) (quoting Lujan v
. De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). “At le a st one pla intiff m ust ha ve sta nding to se e k e a c h form

of
re lie f re que ste d,” Tow n of C he ste r , 137 S. C t. at 1651, a nd tha t pa rty “ be ars the burde n of e sta blishing”the e le m e nts of sta nding “ with the m anne r and de gre e of
e vide nc e re quire d at the suc c e ssive sta ge s of the litiga tion,” Lujan , 504 U.S. a

t 561.

“ At this ve ry

pre lim ina

ry sta ge ,” pla i ntiffs “ m ay

re ly on the a lle gations in the ir C om pla int a nd wha te ve r othe r e vide nc e the y

subm itte d in support of the ir [pre lim ina

ry -injunc tion] m otion to m e e t the ir burde n.” W ashington v

. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th C ir. 2017) (pe r c uriam ). And the y “ ne e d only

e sta blish a risk
or thre at of injury to sa

tisfy the a c tua l injury

re q u ire m e nt.” Harris v . Bd. of Supe rv isors , 366 F.3d 754, 762 (9th C ir. 2004); se eSpok e o , 136 S. C t. at 1548 (noting tha

t the injury

m ust be “ a c tua l or im

m ine nt, not c onje c t

ura l or hy pothe t ic a l” (quoting Lujan , 504 U.S. a t 560)). The distric t c ourts c onc lude d tha t the State s ha d sta

nding ba se d on the ir
a lle ge d loss of fe de ra l funds a nd inc re a se in ope ra t iona l c osts re l a te d to individua ls dise nrolling from the non-c a sh public be n e fits a t issue . DHS c ha lle nge s this 2 2finding, a

rguing tha

t pre d i c tions of futurefina nc i a l ha rm are ba s e d on a

n

“ ‘ a tte nuate d c ha i n of possibilitie s’ tha t doe s not show ‘ c e rta inly

im pe nding’ injury .” 9 DHS’ s a

rgum e n t is una

va iling for se v e ra l re a sons. First, the injurie s a lle g e d a re not e n tire ly

spe c ulative

— at

le a st for sta

nding purpose s . DHS a c knowle dge s tha t one re sult of theFina l R ule will be to
e nc oura g e a lie ns to dise nroll from public be ne fits. It pre dic te d a 2.5 pe rc e nt dise nrollm e nt rate whe n proposing the rule
. 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,463. This dise nrollm e nt, DHS pre dic te d , would re sult in a re duc t ion in M e dic a id
re im burse m e nt pa

ym e n ts to theState s of a

bout $1.01 billion. Id. a t 41,301. DHS
a lso a c knowle dge d inc re a s e d a d m inistra tive c osts tha

t would re sult from

the Fina l R ule
. Id. a t 41,389. To be sure , the pre d ic te d re sult is pre m ise d on the a c tions of third pa rtie s, but this ty

pe of “ p re dic t a

ble e ffe c t of Gove rnm e n t a c tion on the de c isions of third pa

rtie s” is suffic ie nt to e sta

blish injury

in fa c t. D e

p’t of C omme rc e v . N

e w York , 139 S. C t. 2551, 2566 (2019). M ore ove r, a c c ording to e vide nc e supplie d by the State s, the pre dic te d re sults have a l re a dy

sta rte d . As m o re individuals dise nroll from M e dic a id, the State s will no longe r re c e ive re im

burse m e nts from

the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt for tre a ting the m .

9 DHS ra ise s no a

rgum e n t a bout the se c ond a

nd third e le m e nts of the sta nding a na ly sis. 2 3Sim ila

rly , the State s ha

ve suffic ie ntly

a lle ge d tha

t the y are fa c i ng ne wan d ongoing ope ra t iona l c osts re sulting from the Fina l R

ule
. Se e C

i ty & C t y . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718 , a t *48. The se c osts a re pre dic t a

ble , like ly , a

nd im m i ne n t. It is disinge nuous for DHS to c la im tha t the y are too a tte nuat e d at this point whe n it
a c knowle dge d the se c osts in its own rule m aking proc e ss. Fina lly , DHS’ s re lia

nc e on C lappe r v . Amne

sty Int’l USA , 568 U.S. 398 (2013), is unfounde d. The re , the C ourt found tha t va rious hum an rights, la

bor, le ga l, a nd m e dia orga niz a tions did not ha

ve sta nding to c ha lle n ge the
c onstitutiona

lity of a la w a uthoriz ing gove rnm e nta l e le c tronic surve illa nc e of
c om m unic a tions for fore ign inte llige nc e purpose s. Id. a t 414. Thea lle ge d injury
wa s tha t the thre a t of surve illa

nc e would c o m

pe l the m to tra ve l a broa d to ha

ve inpe rson c onve rsa tions with sourc e s a nd witne sse s, in a d dition to othe r c osts re late d to prote c ting the c onfide ntia lity of se nsitive c om

m unic a tions. Id. a t 406–07. The C ourt found tha

t the injury

wa s not “ c e rta inly

im pe n ding” be c a

use it wa s highly spe c ulative whe the r the gove rnm e nt would im m ine ntly ta rge t c om m unic a tions be twe e n the pla intiffs a

nd fore i gn individua

ls. Id. a t 410–11. The

a ssum p tion tha t the i r c o m m unic ations would be

ta rge te d wa s not e n ough to de m onstra te injury in fa c t . Id. a t 411–14. He re , the State s a re not m aking a ssum

p tions a bout the ir

2 4c la im e d injurie s. Unlikein C lappe r , the State s pre se nt e vide nc e tha t the pre dic te d dise nrollm e nt a

n d rising a dm i nistra

tive c osts a

re c urre ntly

ha ppe ning. Thus, ba se d on the ava ila ble e v ide nc e a t this e arly

sta ge of the proc e e dings,
we c onc lude tha

t the State s ha

ve shown tha

t the y have suffe re d a

n d will suffe r dire c t injurie s tra c e a

ble to the Fina l R

ule and thus ha

v e sta nding to c ha lle nge its
va lidity
.

B
. Mootne

ss Fina lly , we ra ise on our own the que stion of whe the r we c a n c onside r DHS’ s
re que s t for a

sta y of the distric t

c ourt’ s pre l im ina

ry injunc tions. Se e De me ry v . Arpaio , 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [W ] e have an inde pe nde nt duty to
c onside r sua sponte

whe the r a

c a se is m oot.” ). The sta

y would, pre sum a

bly , a llow the Fina l R

ule to go into e ffe c t pe nding furthe r proc e e d ings in the distric t c ourt a

nd this c ourt. The que stion of m ootne ss a rise s be c a use , c onte m

pora n e ous with the distric t c o urts’ orde rs he re , distric t c ourts in M ary la nd a nd Ne wYork a lso issue d
nationwideinjunc tions. C asa de Md/, Inc

. v . Trump , 2019 W L 5190689 (D. M d. Oc t. 14, 2019); N

e w York v . U.S. De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 2019 W L 5100372

2 5(S.D.N.Y. Oc t. 11, 2019). 1 0 Thus, unle ss a sta y a lso issue s in thosec a se s, a ny sta y
we m ight issue

would not al low the Fina l R ule to go into e ffe c t; the Fina l R ule would still be

ba rre d by those injunc tions. W e re c e ntly

a d dre sse d this pre c ise que stion in C alifornia v. U.S. De

partme nt of He alth &Human Se rv ic e s , 941 F.3d 410, 423 (9th C ir. 2019), a nd we c onc lude d that e ve n if a n injunc t ion from

anothe r c ourt “ ha s a

fully nationwide sc ope , we
ne ve rthe le ss re t a in jurisdic tion unde r the e xc e ption to mootne ss for c a se s c a pa ble of re p e tition, y e t e va ding re vie w.” Sim i la rly , we c onc lude tha

t DHS’ s pe tition is not m oot, a

nd we proc e e d

to the m e rits of its pe tition. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW DHS re q ue s ts tha t we sta y the distric t c ourts’ pre lim ina ry injunc tions pe nding re solution of the

c onside ration of them e rits of DHS’ s a ppe a ls. W e have
a uthority to do so under the All W rits Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 1651, whic h provide s tha t the c ourts “ m ay

issue a ll writs ne c e ssa

ry or a ppropria te in a id of the i r re spe c tive jurisdic tions a

n d a gre e a ble to the usa ge s a

nd princ iple s of la

w.” S e e Sc rippsHow ard Radio, Inc . v . FC C , 316 U.S. 4, 9–10 (1942) (finding tha t a fe de ra l c ourt
m ay sta y judgm e nts pe nding a

ppe a l “ a s pa

rt of its tra ditiona l e quipm e n t for the

1 0 In a third c a se out of the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, the distric t c ourt issue d a n orde r e njoining e nforc e m e nt of the Fina l R ule in Illinois only
. C

ook C ty
. v . Mc A le e nan , 2019 W L 5110267 (N.D. Ill. Oc t. 14, 2019). 2 6a dm inistra

tion of justic e ” ); In reMc K e nzie , 180 U.S. 536, 551 (1901) (noting the

“ inhe re n t powe r of the a

ppe lla te c ourt to sta

y . . . proc e e dings on a

ppe a l” ); se e also Fe d. R . C iv. P. 62(g). Two sta nda rds a ffe c t our de te rm ination, thesta n da rd a pplic a ble to distric t
c ourts for pre lim ina

ry i njunc tions, a

n d the sta nda rd for a ppe lla te c ourts for sta

y s pe nding a ppe a l . The distric t c ourt m ust a pply a four-fa c tor sta

nda rd: A pla intiff se e king a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion m

ust e sta blish [1] tha

t he is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits, [2] tha t he is like l y to suffe r irre pa ra ble ha rm in the a bse nc e of pre lim ina

ry re lie f, [3] tha

t the ba la nc e of e quitie s tips in his fa vor, a nd [4] tha t a n injunc tion is in the public inte re st. W inte r , 555 U.S. a

t 20. Alte rna tive ly , “ ‘ se rious que stions going to the m e rits’ an d a

ba la nc e of ha rdships tha

t tips sha rply towa rds the pla intiff c an support issua n c e of a pre l im ina ry injunc tion, so long a s the pla intiff a lso shows tha t the re is a

like lihood of irre pa ra ble injury and tha t the injunc tion is in the

public inte re st.” All. for the W ild Roc k ie s v . C o ttre l l , 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th C ir. 2011). Ge ne ra lly , the purpose of a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion is to “

pre se rve the sta

tus quo a nd the rights of thepa

rtie s until a

fina l judgm e nt issue s in the c a use .” U.S. Philips C orp. v . K BC Bank N .V. , 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting Univ
. of Te x . v . C ame nisc h , 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981); Sie rra On-Line , Inc . v . Phoe nix 2 7Softw a re

, Inc
. , 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th C ir. 1984)). An injunc tion is “ an
e xtra ordina

ry re m e d y tha t m ay only be aw arde d upon a

c le ar showing tha

t the pla i ntiff is e n title d to suc h re lie f.” W inte r , 555 U.S. a

t 22. It “ should not be gran te d unle ss the m ova

nt, by a c le ar show ing , c arrie s the burde n of pe rsua s ion.” Mazure k v . Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (pe r c uriam ) (c ita

tion om itte d). The sta nda rd we a pply to DHS’ s re que s t for a

sta y is sim ila r, a lthough the burde n of proof is re ve rse d. “ The pa rty re que sting a sta

y be ars the burde n of showing tha

t the c irc um s ta

nc e s justify

an e x e rc ise of tha

t disc re tion,” and our
ana ly sis is guide d by

four fa c t o rs: (1) whe the r the sta

y a pplic ant ha s m a de a

strong showing tha

t he is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits; (2) whe the r the a p plic an t will be irre pa ra bly injure d a

bse nt a sta

y ; (3) whe the r issua

n c e of the sta

y will substa ntia lly injury the othe r partie s inte re ste d in the proc e e ding; a nd (4) whe re the public inte re st lie s. N k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 433–34 (quoting Hilton v . Braunsk ill , 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).

“ The first two fa c t ors . . . a re the m ost c ritic a l,” and the “ m e re possibility ” of
suc c e ss or irre pa

ra ble injury is insuffic ie nt to sa

tisfy the m . Id. a t 434 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). At this sta ge of the proc e e dings, it is now DHS’ s burde n to m a ke “ a strong showing tha

t [it] is like ly

to” pre v a il a ga inst the State s’
c la im s. Lair v . Bulloc k

, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting N k e n , 556

2 8U.S. at 426). W e c onside r the fina l two fa c t ors “ [o] nc e an a pplic ant sa

tisfie s the first two.” N

k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 435.

“ A sta y is a n ‘ i ntrusion into the

ordina ry proc e ss of a d

m inistra t ion a nd judic ia l re vie w,’ and a c c ordingly ‘ is not a m a tte r of right, e ve n if irre pa ra ble injury
m ight othe rwise re sult to the a ppe lla nt.’ ” Id. a t 427 (c ita

tions omitte d). “ It is inste a d ‘ an e xe rc ise of judic ia l disc re tion,’ and ‘ the proprie ty of its issue

is de pe nde nt upon thec irc um sta nc e s of the pa

rtic ula r c a se .’ ” Id. a t 433 (a lte ra tion
om i tte d) (quoting Virginian Ry . C o. v . Unite d

State s , 272 U.S. 658, 672–73 (1926)). The re is signific ant ove rla p in the se sta

nda rds. The first prong in both te sts— like lihood of suc c e s s on the m e rits— is the sa m e . And the Supre m e C ourt ha s m a de c le ar that sa

tisfa c tion of this fa c tor is the irre duc ible m inim um
re quire m e nt to gra

nting a ny e quita ble and e xtra ordina

ry re l ie f. Trump v . Haw ai’i , 138 S. C t. at 2423. Thean a ly sis e nds if the m oving pa rty fa ils to show a

like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits of its c la im s. Id.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF SUC C ESS ON THE M ER ITS Any “ p e rson suffe ring le ga l wrong . . . or a dve rse ly a ffe c te d or a g grie ve d” by an a ge nc y ’ s fina l a c tion m ay se e k judic ia l re vie w. 5 U.S.C
. § 702. The sc ope of our re vie w is de te rm ine d by the APA. As a

re vie wing c ourt, we m

ust “ se t
29a side ” a

fina l rule if it is “ a

rbitra ry , c a p ric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or othe rwise not in a c c orda

nc e with la

w.” Id. § 706(2)(A). In m aking this de te rm inat ion, we
m ay “ de c ide a l l re l e va

n t que stions of la

w, inte rpre t . . . sta

tutory provisions, a

nd de te rm i ne the m e aning or a pplic a bility of the te rm s of a

n a ge nc y a c tion.” Id. § 706. DHS argue s tha

t it is like ly

to suc c e e d on the m e rits of its a ppe a l be c a

use , c ontra ry to the c onc lusions of the

distric t c ourts, the Fina l R

ule is ne ithe r c o ntra

ry to la w nor a rbitra ry and c a pric ious. W e a gre e . The Fina l R u le ’ s de finition of

“ public c ha

rge ” is c onsiste nt with the re le va nt sta tute s, a nd DHS’ s a c tion wa s not
arbitra ry or c a pric ious. A. C ontrary to Law The Stat e s a

rgue tha t the Fina l R

u le is inva lid unde r the APA be c a use the Fina l R ule ’ s de finition of “

p ublic c ha

rge ” is c ontra

ry to (1) the INA and (2) the R e ha bilita tion Ac t. W e disa gre e and find tha t DHS is like ly

to suc c e e d in its
argum e nt tha

t the Fina l R

ule is not c ontra

ry to la w. 1 1

1 1 The State s a l so brought c la im s in both c o urts unde r the e qua l prote c tion c om pone nt of the Due Proc e ss C la use . U.S. C O N S T . a

rt. V. Ne ithe r distric t c ourt re a c he d this issue . W e a lso de c line to re a c h this issue . W e will c o nside r the like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits only a s to thoseissue s tha

t form e d the ba se s for the d istric t c o urts’ injunc tions. In a ny furthe r proc e e dings, thedistric t c ourts a re fre e to c o nside r any issue s fa i rly be fore the m .

301. The INA a nd “ Public C h arge ” W he n c onfronte d with a

n a rgum e nt tha

t a n a ge nc y ’ s inte rpre tation of a sta tute tha t it a d m iniste rs is wrong, wee m ploy the fa m ilia

r C he v ron two-ste p te st. First, we a sk “ whe the r C ongre ss ha s dire c tly spoke n to the pre c ise que stion a

t issue .” C he v ron, U.S.A., Inc . v . N

at. Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc

. , 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). If it ha s, “ that is the e nd of the m atte r; for the c ourt, a s we ll a s the a ge nc y , m ust give e ffe c t to the una

m biguously e xpre sse d inte nt of C ongre ss.” Id. a t 842–43. B ut if C ongre ss ha s not spoke n dire c t ly to the issue a t

ha nd, we proc e e d to the se c ond ste p a

nd a sk “ w he the r the a ge nc y ’ s a nswe r is ba se d on a

pe rm issible
c onstruc tion of thesta

tute .” Id. a t 843. W e m u st ke e p in m ind why C

h e v r on is a

n im porta nt rule of c onstruc tion: C he v ron is roote d in a

ba c kground pre sum

ption of c ongre ssiona l inte nt: na m e ly , tha t C ongre ss, whe n

it le ft a m biguity in a sta tute a dm iniste re d by

an a ge nc y , unde rstood tha t the am biguity would be re solve d, first a

nd fore m ost, by

the a ge n c y , a

nd de sire d the a ge nc y (ra the r tha

n the c ourts) to posse ss wha te ve r de gre e of disc re tion the am biguity a llows. C

he v ron thus provide s a sta ble ba c kground rule a ga inst whic h C ongre ss c an le gisla t e : Sta tutory am biguitie s will be re solve d, within the

bounds of re a sona

b le inte rpre tation, not by the c ourts but by

the a dm iniste ring a ge nc y . C ongre ss knows to spe ak in pla in te rm s whe n it wishe s to c irc um sc ribe , a nd in c a pa c ious te rm s whe n it wishe s to e nla

rge , a ge nc y

disc re tion. Arlington v . FC C , 569 U.S. 290, 296 (2013) (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions
om i tte d).
31The distric t c ourts found tha t the Fina l R

ule fa ile d the C

he v ron te s t at one or both steps be c a

use the Fina l R

ule ’ s de finition of “

public c ha

rge ” wa s an im pe rm issiblere a ding of tha t phra s e in the INA. W e will c onside r e a c h ste p in turn.
a . C

he v ron Ste p 1 At C he v ron ’ s first step, we de te rm ine whe the r C ongre ss ha s dire c tly spoke n to the issue a t ha

nd by “ e m ploy ing tra ditiona l tools of sta tutory c onstruc tion.” C he v ron , 467 U.S. a

t 843 n.9. Tha

t m e ans we sta

rt with thete xt. A

fe w e rk i v
. Anay a Law

Grp. , 868 F.3d 771, 778 (9th C ir. 2017). W e will the n e xam ine the history of inte rpre tation to se e if the re ha s be e n a judic ia l c onstruc tion of thete rm

“ public c ha

rge ” that “ follows from

the una m biguous te rm s of the sta

tute and thus le ave s no room

for a ge nc y

disc re tion.” N

at’l C able & Te le c omms. Ass’n v . Brand X Inte rne t Se rv

s ., 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005). Fina lly , we will c onside r othe r fa c tors
ra ise d by the distric t c ourts a n d the State s. (1) Te x t . Unde r § 212 of the INA, a n a lie n is ina dm i ssible if, “ in the opinion of” the im m igration offic i a l, the a lie n “ is like ly a t a ny tim e to be c om e a public
c ha rge .” In m aking tha

t de te rm ination, the im

m i gra tion offic ia l m

ust c onside r “ a t
a m inim um ” the a l ie n’ s a ge , he a lth, fa m ily sta tus, fina nc ia l re sourc e s, e duc a tion,
and skills. 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(4)(A). C ongre s s did not de fine the se te rm s a nd
32pla c e d no furthe r re stric t ions on wha t the se offic e rs m ay

c o nside r in the public
c ha rge a sse ssm e nt. Nor did C ongre ss pre sc ribe how the offic e rs a re to re ga rd the five e num e ra te d fa c tors. W e have four quic k obse rva tions. First, the de t e rm i nation is e ntruste d to the

“ opinion” of the c onsula

r or im m igration offic e r. 1 2 Tha

t is the la n gua g e of disc re tion, a

n d the offic ia l s a

re give n broa d le e way . De pe nding on the c o nte xt in whic h the “ opinion” is give n , the de c ision m ay be nonre vie wa

ble
. Unde r the rule of c onsula

r nonre vie w a

bility , only

the m o st e gre gious a

buse s of disc re tion m ay

be
re vie we d
. Se e K

e r ry v . Din , 135 S. C t . 2128, 2140–41 (2015) (Ke nne dy , J.,
c onc urring); se e also C

arde nas v . Unite d State

s , 826 F.3d 1164, 1171–72 (9th C ir. 2016) (holding tha

t Justic e Ke nne dy ’ s c onc urring opinion in Din is the c ontrolling opinion a nd sum m ariz ing the c onsula

r nonre vie wa

b ility rule ). Inde e d, we have pre v iously

he ld tha t the phra se “ in the opinion of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l” in a

nowre pe a le d im

m igration sta

tute c onfe rre d “ unre v ie wa b le ” disc re tion to the

Exe c utive B ranc h. Se e K

alaw v . I.N .S. , 133 F.3d 1147, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 1997), supe rse de d by statute on othe r grounds . And to thee xte nt the fe de ra l c ourts m ay re vie w suc h

1 2 The te xt of the INA doe s not m e ntion im m igration offic e rs. R a the r, it c om m its the public -c ha

rge de te rm i nation to the

“ opinion of the

Attorne y Ge ne ra l.” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(4)(A). As we e xpla ine d a bove , C ongre ss ha s sinc e tra nsfe rre d the a uthority grante d by the INA to DHS’ s im m igration offic e rs. 33de te rm i nations, our re vie w is na rrow. Se e Monte r o-Martine z v . Ashc roft , 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha t judic ia l re vie w of disc re tiona ry a c ts by the B IA is lim ite d

to “ the pure ly

le ga l a nd he nc e non-disc re t iona

ry ” a spe c ts of the B IA’ s a c t ion); se ealso Alle n v . Milas , 896 F.3d 1094, 1106–07 (9th C ir. 2018) (noting tha

t judic ia l re vie w of visa

de nia ls is “ lim ite d

. . . to c onstitutiona

l
c ha lle nge s” and doe s not e xte nd to APA-ba se d c h a lle nge s (e m pha s is om itte d)). Se c ond, the c ritic a l te rm

“ public c h arge ” is not a

te rm of a rt. It is not se lfde fining. Tha

t doe s not m e an tha

t offic ia l s m ay

pour a ny m e aning into the

te rm , but it doe s m e an tha

t the re is room

for disc re tion a s to wha

t, pre c i se ly , be ing a

“ public c ha

rge ” e n c om

pa sse s. In a

word, the phra se is “ am

biguous” unde r C he v ron ; it is c a

pa ble of a range of m e anings. So long a s the a ge nc y ha s de fine d the t e rm within tha

t ra n ge of m e anings, we have no grounds for se c ond-gue ssing the a ge nc y , “ e ve n if the a ge nc y ’ s re a ding diffe rs from what [we ] be lie ve [] is the be st sta tutory inte rpre tation.” B rand X , 545 U.S. a

t 980 (c iting C

he v r on , 467 U.S.
a t 843–44 & n.11). It a lso m e ans tha t a n a g e nc y “ m ust c onside r vary ing inte rpre tations a

nd the wisdom

of its polic y

on a c ontinuing ba sis,” inc luding “ in
re sponse to c ha

nge d fa c tua l c irc um sta

nc e s , or a c ha nge in a d m inistra t ions.” Id. a t 981 (quota

tions m arks a

nd c ita t ions om itte d).

34Third, C ongre s s se t out five fa c tors to be tak e n into a c c ount by im m igration offic ia ls, but e xpre ssly

did not lim

it the disc re tion of offic ia ls to those fa c tors. R a the r the fa c tors a

re to be c onside re d “ a t a

m i nim um .” Othe r fa c tors m ay

be
c onside re d a s we l l, giving offic ia ls c onside ra b le disc re tion in the ir de c isions. Fourth, C ongre ss gra

n t e d DHS the powe r to a dopt re gula tions to e nforc e the provisions of the

INA. Whe n C ongre ss c re a te d DHS, C ongre ss ve ste d the Se c re t ary of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

“ with the a dm inistra

tion a nd e n forc e m e nt of . . .
a ll [] la ws re lat ing to the im

m igration a

nd na tura liz a tion of a lie n s” and a u thoriz e d the Se c re ta

ry to “ e sta b lish suc h re g ulations . . . a s he de e m s ne c e s sa ry .” 8 U.S.C . § 1103(a )(1) & (3); se e also 6 U.S.C . § 112(b)(1) (a uthoriz ing the Se c re ta

ry to

“ de le gate any

of the Se c re ta

ry ’ s func tions to a

ny [DHS] offic e r, e m

ploy e e , or orga niz a tiona l unit” ); Matte r of D-J

- , 23 I. & N. De c . at 573–74. B y granting
re gula tory a uthority to DHS, C ongre ss inte n de d tha t DHS would re solve any
am biguitie s in the INA. Se eEnc ino Motorc ars, LLC v . N av arro , 136 S. C t. 2117, 2125 (2016) (“ A pre m i se of C he v ron is tha

t whe n C ongre s s gra

nts a n a ge nc y the
a uthority to a dm iniste r a

sta tute by issuing re gula

tions with the

forc e of la

w, it pre s um e s the a ge nc y

will use that a

uthority to re solve am

biguitie s in the sta

tutory
sc he m e . ” ). As we have a lre a d y note d, the INA’ s te xt is a m biguous. DHS ha s

35a tte m

pte d to e luc idate tha

t a m biguity in the Fina l R

u le . In short, we do not re a d the t e xt of the INA to una m biguously fore c lose DHS’ s a c t ion. (2) Historic

Unde rstanding
. Although the fore going would ordina

rily be suffic i e nt to e nd our inquiry , the c urre nt provision, whic h wa s m ost re c e ntly
re writte n in 1996 in IIR

IR A, is m e re ly

the m ost re c e nt ite ra tion of fe de ra l im m igration la

w to de e m

an a lie n ina dm issibleif he or she is like ly to be c o m e a

“ public c ha

rge . ” The re is a

long history

of judic ia l a

nd a dm inistra

tive inte rpre tations of this phra se in the im m igration c o nte xt tha

t pre date s the
e na c tm e nt of the INA. B e c a use “ C ongre ss is pre sum e d to be aware of a n
a dm inistra

tive or judic i a l inte rpre tation of a sta tute an d to a dopt tha

t inte rpre tation whe n it re -e na c ts a

sta t ute without c ha

nge ,” Lorillard v . Pons , 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978), we m

ust e xam i ne this history

to de te rm ine if “ public c ha rge ” ha s a we llde fine d a nd c ongre ssiona lly

unde rstood m e aning tha

t lim its DHS’ s disc re tion. The history

of the te rm

“ public c ha

rge ” c onfirm s tha

t its de finition ha s
c ha nge d ove r tim e to a da

pt to thewa

y in whic h fe de ra l, sta

te , a nd loc a l gove rnm e nts ha

ve c are d for our m ost vulne ra

ble popula

tions. “ Public c ha

rge ” first
a ppe are d in this c ountry ’ s im m igration la

w in 1882. Tha

t sta t ute e x c lude d a would-be im

m igra nt from the Unite d State s if the pe rson wa s a “ c onvic t, luna tic ,

36idiot, or a [] pe rson una b le to ta ke c are of him se lf or he rse lf without be c om ing a public c ha

rge .” Ac t of Aug. 3, 1882 c h. 376, § 2, 22 Sta t. 214. C ongre ss did not de fine “ public c ha rge ” in the 1882 a c t. W e thus a sc ribe to that phra se its c om

m only unde rstood m e aning a

t the tim e , a s e vide n c e d

by
c onte m p orary sourc e s. Se e Fre e man v . Quic k e n Loans, Inc
. , 566 U.S. 624, 633–34 & nn.6–8 (2012) (c i ting c onte m pora ry dic tiona ry de finitions to inte

rpre t sta tutory phra se s). An 1828 dic t iona ry de fine d “ c ha

rge ” a s “ [t] hat whic h is e njoine d , c om m itte d, e n t

ruste d or de live re d to a

nothe r, im

ply ing c are , c ustody , ove rsight, or duty to be pe rform e d

by the pe rson e ntruste d,” or a “ p e rson or thing c om m itte d to
anothe rs [sic ] c ustody , c are or m ana ge m e nt.” C ha rge , W E B S T E R ’ S D I C T I O N A R Y (1828 Online Edition), http://we bste rsdic t iona

ry 1828.c om

/Dic t iona ry /c ha rge ; se e also Ste wart R a

pa ljb & R o be rt L. La

wre n c e , D I C T I O N A R Y O F A M E R I C A N A N D E N G LI S H L A W , W I T H D E F I N I T I O N S O F T H E T E C H N I C A L T E R M S O F T H E C A N O N A N D C I V I L L A W S 196 (Fre de ric k D. Linn & C o. 1888) (de fining “ c ha rge ” a s “ an obliga tion or lia b ility . Thus we spe ak . . . of a pa upe r be ing c ha

rge a b l e to the pa rish or town” ). That

is a broa d, c om

m on-se nse de finition, whic h wa s re fle c te d in Nine te e nth-C e ntury

judic ia l opinions using the phra s e . S

e e , e .g. , In re Day , 27 F. 678, 681 (C .C
. S.D.N.Y. 1886) (de fining a “ public c ha

rge ” a s a pe rson who “ c an
ne ithe r take c are of the m se lve s, nor a re unde r the c ha

rge or prote c tion of a

ny othe r
37pe rson” ); State v . The S.S. “C

onstitution” , 42 C a l. 578, 584–85 (1872) (noting tha t those who a

re “ lia ble to be c om e a

public c ha

rge ” are “ pa

upe rs, va ga

b o nds, a nd
c rim ina ls, or sic k, dise a se d, infirm , a nd disa ble d pe rsons” ); C

ity of Alton v

. Madison C

ty
. , 21 Ill. 115, 117 (1859) (noting tha t a pe rson is not a “ public c ha rge ” if the pe rson ha s “ am

ple m e ans” of support). The 1882 a c t did not c onside r an a lie n a “ public c ha

rge ” if the a lie n re c e ive d
m e re ly som e form

of public a ssista

nc e . The a c t

itse lf e sta

blishe d a n “ im m i grant fund” that wa s de signe d to provide“ for the c are of im m igra nts a rriving in the Unite d State s.” Ac t of M ar. 26, 1910 c h. 376, § 1, 22 Sta t. 214. C ongre s s thus
a c c e pte d tha t providing som

e a ssista nc e to re c e nt im

m igra nts would not m

ake those im m igra nts public c h arge s. B ut C ongre ss did not dra wtha t line with a

ny pre c ision. Inste a d, we re a d “ public c ha

rge ” in the 1882 a c t to re fe r ge ne ra lly to those who we re unwilling or una ble to c are for the m se lve s . In c onte xt tha t ofte n
m e ant tha t the y we re house d in a

gove rnm e nt or c ha

rita ble institution, suc

h a s a n
a lm shouse , a sy lum , or pe nite ntia ry . The te rm “ public c ha

rge ” e ndure d through subse que nt a m e ndm e nts to the 1882 a c t. In 1910, C ongre ss e n a c te d a sta tute tha t de e m e d “ pa

upe rs; pe rsons like ly to be c om e a

public c ha

rge ; profe ssiona l be gga

rs;” and sim i la

r pe ople ina d

m issible
. c h. 128, § 2, 36 Sta

t. 263 (1910). Re ly i ng on the pla c e m e nt of “public c ha rge ”
38be twe e n “ pa upe rs” and “ profe ssiona l be gga rs,” the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t a pe rson is like ly

to be c om e a

public c ha

rge if tha t pe rson ha s “ pe rm ane nt pe rsona l obje c tions” to finding e m ploy m e nt. Ge giow v . Uhl , 239 U.S. 3, 10 (1915). In tha t
c a se , the pe titione rs, R

ussia n e m igre e s, a

rrive d in the Unite d State s with little c a sh
and the inte ntion of going to Portla nd, Ore gon. The im

m igration offic ia ls
c onside re d the m

like ly to be c om e public c h a rge s be c a use Portla nd ha d a high
une m ploy m e n t ra te . In a

spa re , thre e -pa g e opinion by

Justic e Holm e s , the C ourt note d tha t the “ single que stion” be fore the C ourt wa s “ whe the r a n a lie n c an be de c la re d like ly to be c o m e a

public c ha

rge on the ground tha

t the la b o r m a rke t in the c ity of his im m e diate de stina

tion is overstoc ke d.” Id. a t 9–10. TheC ourt
answe re d in the ne gative . In m aking the public -c ha rge de t e rm i nat ion, im

m igration offic e rs m

ust c onside r an a lie n’ s “ pe rsona l” c ha ra c t e ristic s , not a

loc a liz e d job shorta ge . Id. a t 10. The C ourt obse rve d tha t “ public c ha

rge ” should be“ re a d a s ge ne ric a lly

sim ila r to the othe r[] [statutory te rm s] m e ntione d be fore and a fte r” tha t phra se . Id. Five y e ars late r, we followe d the Supre m e C ourt’ s le a d, holding tha t

“ the words ‘ l i ke l y to be c om e a public c ha rge ’ are m e ant to e x c lude only those pe rsons who a

re like ly to be c om e oc c upa nts of a lm s house s for wa

nt of m e a n s with whic h to support them se lve s in the future .” N g Fung Ho v . W

hite , 266 F. 765, 769 (9th C ir. 1920) (c iting H

ow e v . Unite d

State s , 247 F. 292, 294 (2d C ir. 1917)),
39aff’d in part and re v ’d in part on othe

r grounds , 259 U.S. 276 (1922). 1 3 Thus, a s of 1920, we c onside re d the like lihood of be i ng house d in a sta te institution to be the p rim ary

fa c tor in the public -c ha

rge ana ly sis. B y the m id-Twe ntie th C e ntury , the Unite d State s ha d la rge ly a ba ndone d the poorhouse in fa

vor of dire c t pa

ym e nts through soc ia l we lfare le gisla tion. At the fe de ra l le ve l, the gove rnm e n t ha d c re a te d Soc ia l Se c urity and Aid to Fa

m ilie s W ith De pe nde nt C hildre n

(AFDC ). At the sta

te le ve l, gove rnm e nts supple m e nte d fa m ily inc om e through progra

m s suc h a s une m

ploy m e nt insura

nc e and worke r’ s
c om pe nsation. Simila

r c ha n g e s we re be ing m a de in othe r program s suc h a s m e nta l he a lth c are , whe re we m o v e d from institutiona

liz ing the m e nta lly

ill to a progra m of tre a tm e nt with the

e n d of re l e a sing the m . As C hie f Justic e B urge r obse rve d: Historic a lly , a

nd for a c onside ra

ble pe riod of tim e , subsidiz e d c ustodia l c are in priva

te foste r hom e s or boa

rding house s wa s the

1 3 In N g Fung Ho , the pe titione r ha d be e n a dm itte d

to the Unite d State s, ba se d pa rtly on his holding a

“ c e rtific a te ” tha

t a llowe d him to be a

“ m e rc ha nt.” Id. a t 768. Se ve ra l y e ars a fte r his a dm ission, heple a de d guilty to ga m bling. Id. a t 769. It wa s the n de te rm ine d tha t the pe titione r wa s no longe r a m e rc h an t. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue d tha t the pe titione r wa s de porta ble be c a u se he ha d be e n like ly

to be c om e a public c ha

rge a t the tim e of his a dm ission. B e c a use the re wa s no e vide nc e tha

t the c e rtific a t e he ha d produc e d prior to a dm ission ha d be e n fraudule nt, we he l d tha

t m e re l y ple a ding guilty

to ga m b ling a nd pa y ing a $25 fine thre e y e ars a fte r be i ng a dm i tte d did not “ prove tha t the a lie n . . . wa s like ly

to be c om e a public c ha

rge ” a t the tim e of a dm ission. Id. W e thus re je c te d the gove rnm e nt’ s a s se rtion tha t the pe titione r should bede porte d on tha t ba sis. Id. a t 770. 40m ost be nign form of c are provide d inc om

pe te nt or m e n ta lly

ill pe rsons for whom

the State s a ssum e d

re sponsibility . Until we ll into the 19th c e n t

ury the va st m a

jority of suc h pe rsons we re sim ply re stra ine d in poorhouse s, a lm shouse s, or ja i ls. O’C onnor v . Donaldson , 422 U.S. 563, 582 (1975) (B urge r, C .J., c onc urring).

“ [T] he ide a

tha t Sta te s m ay not c onfine the m e n ta lly

ill e xc e p t for the purpose of providing the m

with tre a tm e nt [wa s] of ve ry re c e nt origin.” Id. (footnote om itte d). The wa y in whic h we re ga

rde d the poor a

nd the m e nta l ly

infirm not only brought
c ha nge s in the wa

y we tre a te d the m , but m a jor c ha n ge s in the i r le ga l rights a s we ll. Se e , e .g. , Mc N e il v . Dire c tor, Patux e nt Inst. , 407 U.S. 245, 248–50 (1972) (re quiring a

he aring be fore a

pe rson who ha s c om

ple t e d his c rim i na l se nte nc e c an be c o m m itte d to inde finite c onfine m e nt in a m e nta l institution); c

f. Goldbe rg v . K e lly , 397 U.S. 254, 260–61 (1970) (holding tha t a re c ipie n t of public a ssista nc e pa ym e nts is c onstitutiona

lly e ntitle d to a

n e vide n tia

ry he aring be fore those pa ym e nts a re te rm inate d). The m ove m e nt towa

rds soc ia l we l fare wa s soon re fle c t e d in the de finition of

“ public c ha

rge . ” In M

atte r of B- , 3 I. & N. De c . 323 (B IA 1948), there c e ntly
c re ate d B IA artic ulate d a

ne w de finition of “

p ublic c ha

rge .” Pe rm ane nt institutiona

liz a tion would not be

the sole m e a s ure of whe the r an a lie n wa s a public
c ha rge . The B IA sa id it would a lso c onside r whe t

he r a n a lie n re c e i ve d te m

pora ry

41se rvic e s from the gove rnm e nt. At thesa m e tim e , the B IA re c ogniz e d tha t m e re

“ a c c e pta n c e by an a lie n o f se rvic e s provide d by ” the gove rnm e nt “ doe s not in a nd of itse lf m ake the a lie n a

public c ha

rge . ” Id. a t 324. Inste a d, the B IA sta te d tha t a n
a lie n be c o m e s a

public c ha

rge if thre e e le m e n ts a

re m e t : “ (1) The State or othe r gove rning body

m ust, by a ppropria te la w, im pose a c ha rge for the se rvic e s
re nde re d to the a lie n . . . . (2) The a uthoritie s m

ust m ake de m a

n d for pa ym e nt of the c ha rge s . . . . And (3) there m ust be a fa ilure to pa

y for the c ha

rge s.” Id. a t 326. In othe r words, the gove rnm e nt be ne fit re c e i ve d by the a lie n m

ust be
m one tiz e d, a

bill m ust be pre se nte d to the a lie n, a nd the a lie n

m ust re fuse to pa

y . Ultim a t e ly , in M

atte r of B- , the B IA he ld tha t the pe titione r ha d

not be c om e a public c ha

rge , e ve n though she

ha d be e n involunta

rily c om m itte d to a m e nta l institution, be c a

use the sta

te of Illinois ha d not c h arge d he r or de m ande d pa ym e nt. Id. a t 327. TheB IA’ s orde r wa s subse que n tly a ffirm e d by the Attorne y Ge n e ra l. Id. a t 337. Four y e a rs late r, C ongre ss substa

ntia lly re vise d the im

m igration la

ws in the Im m i gra tion a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t of 1952. Theam e nde d sta tute re ta ine d the te rm

“ public c ha

rge , ” but, for the first tim e , m a de c le ar that the de c ision wa s c o m m itte d to the opinion of a

c onsula r offic e r or the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l. The INA de e m e d ina d m issible“ [a ] l ie ns who, in the opinion of the

c onsula r offic e r at the tim e of
42a

pplic a tion for a visa , or in the opinion of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l at the tim e of
a pplic a tion for a d

m ission, a

re like ly a t a ny tim e to be c om e public c ha rge s.” Title 2, c h. 2, § 212, 66 Sta

t. 163, 183 (1952). Although Matte r of B- wa s not
m e ntione d in the le gisla

tive history

a c c om pa ny ing the 1952 a c t, it is nota b l e tha t C ongre ss c hose to inse rt this “ opinion”la ngua ge following the

B IA’ s a rtic ulation of a ne w de finition of “

public c ha

rge ” tha t de pa rte d from prior judic ia l inte rpre tations of the te rm . In 1974, theB IA a lte re d c ourse a ga in. The B IA lim ite d Matte r of B- ’ s thre e pa rt te s t to de te rm ining whe the r a pe rson ha d be c o m e a

public c ha

rge a fte r having be e n a d m itte d to the Unite d State s . Se e Matte r of Harutunian , 14 I. & N. De c . 583, 585 (B IA 1974). Afte r noting tha t the phra s e “ public c ha

rge ” ha d be e n inte rpre te d diffe re ntly

by va rious c ourts, the B IA he ld: [A] ny a lie n who is inc a

pa ble of e arning a

live lihood, who doe s not have suffic ie n t

funds in theUnite d State s for his support, a nd ha s no pe rson in theUnite d

Stat e s willing a

nd a b l e to a ssure tha

t he will not ne e d public support is e xc luda ble a s like ly

to be c om e a

public c ha

rge whe the r or not the public support whic h will be av a ila b le to him

is re im bursa ble to the sta

te . Id. a t 589–90. The B IA thus pe gge d the public -c ha rge de te rm i nation to whe the r the a lie n wa s like ly to “ ne e d public support,” irre spe c t ive of whe the r the a lie n wa s

43like ly

to be institutiona

liz e d for a

ny le ngth of tim e and bille d for the c ost by the sta te . Id. a t 589. That de finition of “

p ublic c ha

rge ” wa s subse q

ue ntly am e nde d by

the INS. In 1987, theINS issue d

a fina l rule tha

t de e m e d an a p plic ant for a djustm e nt of sta tus to bea

“ public c ha

rge ” if the a

pplic ant ha d “ re c e ive d public c a s h
a ssista nc e .” Adjustm e nt of Sta

tus for C e rta in Alie ns, 52 Fe d. R e g. 16,205, 16,211 (M a y 1, 1987). INS did not sta te how m uc h “ public c a sh a ssista

nc e ” an a lie n ha d to re c e ive , but le ft the de c ision to offic e rs who would judge the tota lity

of the
c irc um s ta nc e s . Se e id. a t

16,211 (noting tha

t “ a l l [the ] e vide nc e produc e d by the
a pplic ant will bejudge d” ), 16,212 (“ The we ight give n in c onside ring a pplic a bility of the public c ha

rge provisions will de

pe nd on m any

fa c tors . . . .” ). INS did m ake
c le ar that “ public c a sh a ssista n c e ” would not inc lude the va lue of “ a ssista n c e in kind, suc h a s food sta

m ps, public housing, or othe r non-c a sh be ne fits,” inc luding M e d ic are and M e dic a id. Id. a t 16,209. In 1996, through IIR

IR A, C ongre ss e n a c te d the c urre nt la ngua ge a ppe aring in § 212 of the INA. Om nibus C onsolida

te d Appropria

tions Ac t, Title 5 § 531, 110 Sta t. 3009 (1996). As deta ile d a bove , C ongre ss a dde d a

re quire m e nt tha

t a n im m igration offic e r c onside r a n a lie n’ s “ a ge ;” “ h e a l th;” “ fa m ily sta t us;” “ a sse ts,

44re sourc e s a

nd fina nc ia l sta tus;” and “ e duc a tion a

nd skills” whe n de te rm ining if a pe rson is like ly

to be c om e a

public c ha

rge . 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(4)(B ). R e sponding to the

1996 a c t, INS publishe d the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e to

“ e s ta b lish c le ar sta

nda rds gove rning a

de te rm inat ion tha

t a n a l ie n is ina dm i ssible or ine l igible to a djust sta

tus . . . on public

c ha rge grounds.” 64 Fe d. R e g. at 28,689. In the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e , INS de fine d “ public c ha rge ” a s “ an

a lie n . . . who is like ly to be c om e (for a dm ission/a djustm e nt purpose s) prim arily de pe nde nt on the gove rnm e nt for subsistenc e , a s de m onstra te d by e ithe r (i) the re c e i pt of public c a sh
a ssista nc e for inc om e m a inte na

nc e or (ii) institutiona

liz at ion for long-te rm

c are a t gove rnm e nt e xpe nse .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e m a de c le ar that the public -c ha rge de te rm ination re m a ine d a “ t ota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s te st.” Id. a t 28,690. W ithin this tota l ity -of-the -c irc um sta

nc e s
a sse ssm e nt, only

the re c e ipt of “ c a sh public a ssista nc e for inc om e m a inte n anc e ” should bec onside re d; “ re c e ipt of non-c a sh be ne fits or the re c e ipt of spe c ia l
purpose c a sh be n e fits not for inc om e m a inte na nc e should not be

ta ke n into
a c c ount.” Id. The 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e thus la rge ly re a ffirm e d INS’ s 1987 rule
. For the pa st twe nty

y e a rs, the 1 999 Fie l

d Guidanc e ha s gove rne d, until it wa s
re pla c e d by

the Fina l R

ule
.

45So what to m ake of this history ? Unlike the distric t c ourts, we are una ble to disc e rn one fixe d

unde rsta nding of “

public c ha

rge ” that ha s e ndure d sinc e 1882. If
anything ha s be e n c onsiste nt, it is the ide a tha t a tota lity -of-the -c irc um sta

nc e s te st gove rns public -c ha

rge de te rm inations. B ut diffe re nt fa c tors ha ve be e n we ighte d
m ore or le ss he avily

a t diffe re nt tim e s, re fle c ting c ha nge s in the wa

y in whic h we provide a ssista

nc e to the ne e dy . Initia l ly , the like lihood of be ing house d in a gove rnm e nt or c h arita

ble institution wa s m ost im porta nt. The n, the foc us shifte d in 1948 to whe the r public be ne fits re c e i ve d by an im m igra n t c ould be m one tiz e d,
and the im

m igra nt re fuse d to pa

y for the m . In 1974, it shifte d a ga in to whe the r the im m igra nt wa s e m

ploy a b le and se lf-suffic ie nt. Tha t wa s subse q

ue ntly na rrowe d in 1987 to whe the r the im

m igra nt ha d re c e ive d public c a sh a ssista n c e , whic h
e xc lude d in-kind be ne fits. C ongre s s the n c odifie d pa rtic ula r fa c tors im

m igration offic e rs m

ust c onside r, whic h wa s followe d by the 1999 Fie l d Guidanc e ’ s de finition of “

public c ha

rge .” In short, we find tha t the history

of the use of

“ public c ha

rge ” in fe de ra l im

m igration la

w de m o nstra

te s tha t “ public c ha

rge ” doe s not ha ve a fixe d, una

m biguous m e a

n ing. R at he r, the phra s e is subje c t to m ultiple inte rpre tations, it in fac t ha s be e n inte rpre te d diffe re ntly , a

nd the Exe c utive B ranc h ha s be e n a fforde d

the disc re tion to interpre t it.

46C ongre ss sim ply ha s not spoke n to how “

public c ha

rge ” should bede fine d. W e m ust pre sum e that whe n C o ngre ss e na c te d the c urre n t ve rsion of the INA in 1996, it wa s a

ware of the va

ry ing historic a l inte rpre tat ions of “ public c ha

rge .” Se e Fore st Grov e Sc h . Dist. v . T.A. , 557 U.S. 230, 239–40 (2009). Ye t C ongre ss c hose not to de fine “ p ublic c ha

rge ” an d, inste a d, de sc ribe d va rious fa c tors to be
c onside re d “ a t a

m inim um ,” without e ve n de fining those fa c tors. It is a p p are nt tha

t C ongre ss le ft DHS a

nd othe r a g e nc ie s e nforc ing our im m igration la

ws the fle xibility to a da pt the de finition of “

public c ha

rge ” a s ne c e ssa

ry . (3) Othe r Fac tors . B oth distric t

c ourts found it signific ant tha t C o ngre ss twic e c onside re d, but fa ile d to e na c t, a de finition of “

public c ha

rge ” tha t is simila r to the de finition a d o pte d in the Fina l R ule
. C ity & C ty . of San Franc i

sc o , 2019 W L 5100718 a

t *27; W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *17. During the

de bate s ove r IIR IR A in 1996, C ongre ss c onside re d whe the r to e n a c t the following de finition of

“ public c ha

rge ” : “ the te rm

‘ p ublic c ha

rge ’ inc lude s a

ny a l ie n who re c e ive s [c e rta in
m e ans-te ste d] b e ne fits . . . for a n a g gre gate pe riod of a

t le a s t 12 m onths or 36
m onths” in som e c a se s. 142 C o ng. R e c . 24,313, a t 24,425 (1996). Senator Le ahy
argue d tha t this wa s “ too quic k to la be l pe ople a s public c ha

rge s for utiliz ing the
sam e public a ssista

n c e that m any

Am e ric a n s ne e d to ge t on the ir fe e t,” an d tha t the phra se “ m e ans te ste d ” wa s “ unne c e ssa rily unc e rta in.” S. R e p. No. 104-249, a t
4763–64 (1996). Ne ve rthe l e ss, the Se nate pa sse d the bill c onta i ning the de finition of

“ public c ha

rge . ” B e fore the House c onside re d the bill, howe ve r, Pre side n t C linton im plic itly thre a te n e d to ve to it be c a use it we nt “ too fa

r in de ny ing le g a l im

m igra nts
a c c e ss to vital sa fe ty

ne t progra

m s whic h c o uld je opa

rdiz e public he a lth a

n d
sa fe ty .” State m e nt on Se nate Ac tion on the “ Im m igrat ion C o ntrol a

nd Fina nc ia l R e sponsibility

Ac t of 1996,” 32 W e e kly C om p. Pre s. Doc . 783 (M ay 6, 1996). Ultim a t e ly , C ongre ss c hose not to e na c t this “ p ublic c ha

rge ” de finition. In 2013, the Se nat e re

je c te d an am e ndm e nt to theINA tha t “ would ha

ve e xpa n de d the de finition of ‘ public c ha

rge ’ suc h tha

t pe ople who re c e ive d

non-c a s h he a lth be ne fits c ould not be c om e le ga l pe rm ane nt re side nts. This a m e ndm e nt would a lso have de nie d e ntry to individua ls whom the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity de te rm i ne s a

re like ly to re c e ive the s e ty

pe s of be ne fits in thefuture .” S. R e p. No. 113-40, a t 63 (2013). The distric t c ourts vie we d the se fa ile d le gisla tive e fforts a s e vide n c e tha t C ongre ss spe c ific a lly

re je c te d the inte rpre tat ion of “public c h arge ” DHS
artic ulate d in the Fina l R

ule , and tha

t the Fina l R

ule is thus a

n im pe rm i ssible
re a d ing of the INA. C

ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *27; W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *17. W e disa g re e . If this le gisla tive history

is probat ive of a

nyt h ing, it is proba

tive only of the fa c t tha

t C o ngre ss c hose n ot

to
48c odify

a pa rtic ula r inte rpre tation of “

public c ha

rge . ” 1 4 S e e C e n t . Bank of De nv e r, N .A. v . First Inte rstate

Bank of De nv e r, N

.A. , 511 U.S. 164, 184 (1994) (“ [F] a ile d le gisla tive proposa ls a

re a pa rtic ula rly da nge rous ground on whic h to re s t a n inte rpre tation of a

prior sta tute . ” (quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om itte d)). B ut the fa ilure of C ongre ss to c ompe l DHS to a dopt a

pa rtic ula r rule is not the

logic a l
e quiva le nt of

forbidding

DHS from

a dopting tha

t rule . The fa ilure to a dopt a ne w rule is just tha

t : no ne w rule
. 1 5 And no c ha nge to § 212 m e ans tha

t c onsula r offic e rs, the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l, a

nd DHS re ta in a ll the disc re tion gra nte d the m in the INA.

1 4 Som e tim e s it is a

ppropria te to c onside r la

ngua ge C ongre ss ha s re

j e c te d, prim arily whe n C ongre ss re

je c te d la ngua ge in fa

vor of the sta

t ute a dopte d a

nd unde r re vie w. Se e , e . g. , IN S v . C ardoza-Fonse c a , 480 U.S. 421, 441–42 (1987) (c ontra sting C o ngre ss’ s de c ision to a dopt the House proposa l ove r the Se nate ve rsion).

1 5 W e c an spe c ulate a s to the re a sons tha t m e m be rs of C ongre ss de c line d to a dopt the se le gisla

tive proposa ls, but the

spe c ulation will not he l p us. “ A bill c an be propose d for a

ny num be r of re a sons, a

nd it c a n be re je c t e d for just a s m any othe rs.” Solid W

aste Age nc y of N . C ook C ty
. v . U.S. Army C

orps of Engine e rs , 531 U.S. 159, 170 (2001). Although som e m e m be rs m ay hav e thought the rule too ha rsh, othe rs m ay

have thought it too le

n ie nt, while a

third group m ay have thought the rule should be le ft fle xible and in theha nds of the im

m igration a ge nc ie s. If anything, this le gisla

t ive history

prove s only that C ongre ss de c ide d not to c o nstra in the d isc re tion of a ge nc ie s in de te rm ining who is a public c ha

rge . Tha t disc re tion ha d long be e n ve ste d

in the a ge nc ie s , a

nd the se fa ile d le gisla

tive e fforts did not a lte r that disc re tion. 49A se c ond a rgum e n t m a de by

the State s a

nd re lie d upon by

the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington is tha t DHS e xc e e de d

its a uthority by de t e rm i ning wha

t
m ake s a pe rson “ se lf-suffic ie n t .” W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *17–18. This a rgum e nt is re fute d by the sta tute itse lf. As we hav e disc u sse d, the INA
re quire s im

m igration offic e rs to c onside r an a lie n ’ s “ he a lth,” “ fam ily sta tus,”

“ a s se ts, re sourc e s, [] fina

nc ia l sta tus,” “ e duc a t ion a

nd skills.”

8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(4)(B )(i)(II)–(V) . The c onc e pt of se lf-suffic ie nc y is subsum e d within e a c h of the se fa c tors. And e ve n if it we re not, the sta tutory fa c tors a re not e x ha

ustive ; DHS m ay a dd to the m . Se e id. § 1182(a )(4)(B )(i). B e c a use DHS ha s be e n

“ c h arge d with the a d

m inistra tion a nd e n forc e m e nt” of a ll “ la ws re lating to the im m igration a

nd na tura liz a tion of a lie ns,” Id. § 1103(a )(1); se e also 6 U.S.C . §

50112(b)(1), de te rm ining wha t c onstitute s se lf-suffic ie nc y for purpose s of the public
c ha rge a sse ssm e nt is we l l within DHS’ s a uthority
. 1 6

* * * In short, C ongre ss ha s not spoke n dire c tly to the inte rpre tat ion of “p ublic
c ha rge ” in the INA. Nor did it una m biguously fore c l ose the inte rpre tation
artic ulate d in the Fina l R

ule
. Inste a d, the phra se “ public c ha rge ” is a m biguous unde r C he v ron . DHS ha s the a

uthority to inte rpre t it a

nd “ m ust c onside r vary ing inte rpre tations a

nd the wisdom

of its polic y

on a c ontinuing ba sis.” C

he v ron , 467 U.S. at 863–64. Inde e d, “ the fa c t tha t the a ge nc y

ha s a dopte d diffe re nt de finitions in diffe re nt c onte xts a dds forc e to the argum e nt tha t the de finition itse lf is fle xible , pa rtic u la rly sinc e C ongre ss ha s ne ve r indic a te d a ny disa p prova l of a

fle xible

1 6 The Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington a lso he ld tha t, be c a use the sta

te s ha ve a “ c e ntra l role in form

ulation a nd a dm inistra

tion of he a lth c are polic y ,” DHS “ a c te d be y ond its C ongre ssiona lly de l e gate d a uthority ” whe n it a dopte d the Fina l R ule
. W a shington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *18; se ealso id. (“ C ongre ss c a nnot de le gate a uthority tha t the C onstitution doe s not a lloc a te to the fe d e ra l gove rnm e nt in the first pla c e . . . . .” ). C ongre ss, of c o urse , ha s ple n ary a uthority to re gula te im m igration a

nd na tura liz a tion. U.S. C O N S T . a rt. I, § 8, c l. 4. Pursua

n t to tha t a uthority , C ongre ss a dopte d the “ public c ha rge ” rule , whic h no one ha s c h a lle nge d on c onstitutiona

l grounds. Furthe r, C ongre ss ha s a uthoriz e d DHS to a dopt re gula tions. 8 U.S.C . § 1103(a )(3). DHS thus did not ove rste p its a uthority by prom ulga ting theFina l R

ule . Inde e d, unde r the distric t c o urt’ s ana ly s is, e ve n the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e m i ght be unc onstitutiona l. B ut ne ithe r the distric t c ourt nor the State s que stion thela

wfulne ss of the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e . W e se e no m e aningful diffe re nc e be twe e n INS’ s a uthority to prom ulga te the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e and DHS’ s a

uthority to a dopt the Fina l R

ule
. 51re a d ing of the sta tute .” Id. a t 864. W e thus proc e e d to the se c ond ste p of the C he v ron ana ly s is.

b. C he v ron Ste p 2 At C he v ron ’ s se c o nd ste p , we a sk whe the r the a ge nc y ’ s inte rpre tation is

“ re a sona ble

— or ‘ ra tiona l a

n d c onsiste nt with the

sta tute .’ ” Diaz-Quirazc o v . Barr , 931 F.3d 830, 840 (9th C ir. 2019) (quoting Sulliv an v . Ev e rhart , 494 U.S. 83, 89 (1990)). If it is, wem

ust de fe r to it, “ e ve n if the a ge nc y ’ s re a d ing diffe rs from what the c ourt be lie v e s is the be st sta tutory inte rpre tation.” Pe re z-Guzman v

. Ly nc h , 835 F.3d 1066, 1073–74 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Brand X , 545 U.S. a

t 980). The Fina l R

ule e a sily satisfie s this te st. As we have e xpla ine d, the INA gran ts DHS c onside ra

ble disc re tion to de te rm ine if a n a lie n is like ly

to be c om e a public c ha

rge . To be sure , unde r the Fina l R ule , in-kind be n e fits (othe r tha n institutiona

liz a tion) will for the

first tim e be re le v ant to thepublic -c ha rge de te rm i nation. W e se e no sta tutory ba sis from

whic h a c ourt c ould c onc lude tha t the a ddition of c e rta in c a te gorie s of in-kind be n e fits m a ke s DHS’ s inte rpre tation

52unte na

ble
. 1 7 And whe the r the c ha nge in polic y

re s ults from

c ha nging
c irc um s ta nc e s or a c ha nge in a d m inistra tions, thewisdom

of the polic y

is not a que stion we c an re vie w. Se e Brand X , 545 U.S. a

t 981. Our c onc lusion is re inforc e d by the Pe rsona l R e sponsibility and W ork Opportunity

R e c onc ilia

tion Ac t of 1996 (PR

W OR A ), whic h C ongre ss e na c te d
c onte m p orane ous with IIR

IR A. PR W OR A se t forth our “ n a tiona l polic y with
re spe c t to we lfare and im m i gra tion.” 8 U.S.C . § 1601. In re le v ant pa rt, PR W OR A provide s, “ Se lf-suffic ie nc y ha s be e n a ba sic princ i ple of Unite d State s im m igration la w sinc e this c ountry ’ s e arlie st im m igration sta

tute s.” Id. § 1601(1). As a re sult,

“ [i] t c ontinue s to be the i m m igration polic y

of the Unite d State s tha

t . . . a lie ns within theNation’ s borde rs not de pe nd on publicre s ourc e s to m e e t the ir ne e ds, but
ra the r re ly

on the ir own c a

pa bilitie s a nd the re sourc e s of the ir fam ilie s, the ir sponsors, a

nd priva te orga niz a tions.” Id. § 1601(2). R e c e ipt of non-c a sh public
a ssista nc e is sure ly

re le va n t to “ se lf-suffic ie n c y ” an d whe the r im m igra n ts a re

“ de pe nd[ing] on public re sourc e s to m e e t the ir ne e ds.” S

e e id. § 1601(1)–(2); se e

1 7 C a sh be ne fits a

nd in-kind be ne fits a

re ofte n tre a te d

unde r the single rubric of a “ dire c t subsidy
. ” W

itte rs v . W

a sh. De p’t of the Se rv

s. for the Blind , 474 U.S. 481, 487 (1986). In c e rta i n c onte xts, suc h a s se ttle m e nt, “ c om p e nsat ion in kind is worth le ss tha

n c a sh of the sa

m e nom i na l va l ue ,” In reMe x . Transfe r Litig. , 267 F.3d 743, 748 (9th C ir. 2001), but the Fina l R u le doe s not de a l with theva luation of suc h se rvic e s. It de a ls only with whe the r in-kind be ne fits ha v e be e n re c e ive d unde r c e rta in spe c ifie d progra m s. 53also K

orab v . Fink

, 797 F.3d 572, 580 (9th C ir. 2014). PR W OR A thus le nds support to DHS’ s inte rpre t a tion of theINA. W e c onc lude tha

t DHS’ s inte rpre tation of “ public c ha

rge ” is a pe rm issible
c onstruc tion of theINA. 2. The R e ha

b ilita t i on Ac t The Stat e s a

rgue , a nd the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington found, tha t the Fina l R ule is inc onsiste nt with the R e ha b ilita tion Ac t. W

ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a

t *18. TheNorthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia re je c te d tha t argum e nt. C

ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *29–30. The

R e ha bilita tion Ac t provide s: “

No othe rwise qua lifie d individual with a disa bility in the Unite d State s . . . sha ll, sole ly

by re a s on of he r or his disa

bility , be e xc lude d from pa rtic ipation in, be de n ie d the be ne fits of, or be subje c te d to disc rim inat ion unde r any progra m
or a c tivity

. . . c onduc te d by

any Exe c utive a ge nc y .” 29 U.S.C . § 794(a ).

“ Progra m or a c tivity ” is de fine d a s “ a ll of the ope rations of . . . [a n] a g e nc y .” Id. § 794(b). This a rgum e nt ne e d not de ta in us long. First, unde r the INA, im

m igration offic e rs a re obliga te d to c o n side r an im

m igra nt’ s “ he a lth” whe n m a

k ing the public
c ha rge de te rm i nation. 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(4)(B )(i)(II). To the e xte nt tha t inquiry
m ay c onside r an a lie n’ s disa

bility , the offic e rs ha

ve be e n spe c ific a lly

dire c te d by
54C ongre ss to do so. Inde e d, C ongre ss’ s e xpre ss dire c tion tha t im m igration offic e rs
c onside r an a lie n’ s “ he a lth” c a m e twe nty -thre e y e ars a

fte r the R e ha bilita tion Ac t. W e c annot se e how a

ge ne ra l provision in one

sta tute c onstra ins a

n a g e n c y give n a spe c ific c ha

rge in a subse que nt la

w. The INA doe s not viola te the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t. Se c ond, nothing in the Fina l R ule c ha nge s DHS’ s pra c tic e with re spe c t to
c onside ring a

n a l i e n’ s he a l th. Nothing in the Fina l R ule sugge sts tha

t a lie ns will be de nie d a dm ission or a djustm e nt of sta tus “ sole ly by

re a s on of he r or his disa

bility .” Throughout the

Fina l R ule , DHS c onfirm s tha

t the public -c h arge de t e rm ination is a tota lity -of-the -c i rc um sta

nc e s te st. Se e 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,295, 41,368. And DHS spe c ific a lly

a ddre sse d this a

rgum e nt in the Fina l R

ule : “ it is not the

inte n t, nor is it the e ffe c t of this rule to find a

pe rson a public c ha

rge sole ly ba se d on his or he r disa bility .” Id. a t 41,368. DHS ha s shown a strong like l ihood tha t the Fina l R

ule doe s not viola

te the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t. * * * In sum , DHS is like ly

to suc c e e d in its a

rgum e n t tha t the Fina l R

ule should not be se t a side a s c ontra

ry to la w. W e will not m

inim iz e the pra c tic a l im

p a c t of the Fina l R

ule , but we will obse rve tha t it is a short le a p in logic for DHS to go from c onside ring in-c a sh public a ssista n c e to c onside ring both in-c a sh a nd in-kind public a ssista

nc e . DHS ha s shown tha t the re is a

strong like lihood tha

t its de c ision
55to c o nside r the re c e ipt of in-kind gove rnm e nt a ssista

nc e a s pa rt of its totality -ofthe -c irc um sta

nc e s te st is a re a sona

ble inte rpre tation of theINA a nd doe s not viola te the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t. B
. Arbitrary

and C a pric i ous Arbitra ry and c a p ric ious re vie w unde r the APA a d dre sse s the re a sona ble ne ss of the a ge nc y ’ s de c i sion. The c la ssic sta te m e n t of our sc o pe of re v ie w is Motor Ve hic le Manufac ture rs Assoc iation of the Unite d State

s v . State Farm Mutual Automotiv e Insuranc e C

o. , 463 U.S. 29 (1983): [T] he a ge n c y

m ust e xam ine the re le v ant da t a and a rtic ulate a satisfa c tory

e xpla nation for its a c tion inc luding a ra tiona l c onne c tion be twe e n the fa c ts found a nd the c hoic e m a de . In re vie wing tha t e xpla nat ion, we m

ust c o nside r whe t

he r the de c i sion wa s ba s e d on a c onside ra tion of there le v ant fa c tors a nd whe the r the re ha s be e n a c le ar e rror of judgm e nt. Norm a lly , a n a ge n c y rule would be arbitra

ry and c a pric ious if thea ge nc y

ha s re lie d

on fa c tors whic h

C o ngre ss ha s not inte nde d it to c onside r, e ntire l y fa ile d to c onside r an im porta nt a spe c t of the proble m , offe re d a n e xpla nation for its de c i sion tha t runs c ounte r to the e vide n c e be fore the a ge nc y , or is so im pla usible tha t c ould not bea s c ribe d to a diffe re nc e in vie w of the produc t of a g e nc y e xpe rtise
. Id. a t 43 (quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d); se e Org. Vill. of K a k e v . De p’t of Agric

. , 795 F.3d 956, 966–67 (9th C ir. 2015). An a ge nc y ’ s fa ilure to re spond to
any pa rtic ula r c om m e nt or point put forwa

rd by a rule ’ s oppone nts is not a

ground for finding pe r se arbitra

ry -and-c a pric i ous a c tion. Se e Safari Av iation Inc . v .

56Garv e

y , 300 F.3d 1144, 1150–52 (9th C ir. 2002) (e xpla ining tha t the re is no pe r se viola tion of theAPA whe n a

n a ge nc y fa ils to a ddre ss c om m e nts); Thompson v

. C lark , 741 F.2d 401, 408 (D.C . C ir. 1984) (“ [The APA] ha s ne ve r be e n inte rpre te d to re quire the a ge nc y

to re spond to e ve ry c om

m e nt, or to a

n a ly se [sic ] e ve ry

issue
or a lte rnative ra i se d by

the c om m e nts, no m a tte r how insubsta ntia l.” ). The fa c t tha

t DHS ha s c h ange d polic y doe s not substa

ntia lly a lte r the burde n in the c ha lle nge rs’ fa vor. DHS m ust, of c ourse , “ show tha

t the re are good re a sons for the ne w polic y ,” but, it
ne e d not de m onstra

te to a c ourt’ s sa

tisfa c tion tha

t the re a sons for the ne w polic y

are be tte r tha

n the re a sons for the old one ; it suffic e s tha t the ne w polic y

is pe rm issibleunde r the sta tute , tha t the re are good re a sons for it, a

nd tha t the a ge nc y be lie v e

s it to bebe tte r, whic h the c onsc ious c ha

nge of c ourse a de quate ly

indic a te s . FC C v . Fox Te le v ision Stations, Inc

. , 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). The distric t c ourts ra ise d two obje c tions to DHS’ s c onside ra tion tha t the distric t c o urts found m a d e the Fina l R u le arbitra

ry an d c a pric ious: (1) DHS’ s fa ilure to prope rly

we igh the c osts to sta

te and loc a l gove rnm e nts a nd he a lthc are provide rs, suc h a s hospita l s, re s ulting from dise nrollm e nt from

public be ne fits program s; a

nd (2) DHS’ s ina de quate c onside ra tion of theFina l R ule ’ s im pa c t on public he a lth. C

ity & C ty
. of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *31–35; W ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *19. W e will c onside r e a c h in turn.
571. C osts of Dise nrollm e nt

The Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia ’ s princ ipa l c onc e rn wa s the highe r c osts that sta te and loc a l gove rnm e n ts will fa c e a s a re s ult of “ dise nrollm e nt [from ] public be ne fits.” C

ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *31. Spe c ific a lly , the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t “ DHS a ppe ars to ha

ve wholly fa ile d to e n ga ge with [c om

m e nts on thec osts of thec ha nge ] . DHS fa ile d to gra

pple with the [Fina l] R

ule ’ s pre dic t a

ble e ffe c ts on loc a l gove rnm e nts, a nd inste a d

c onc lude d that the ha rm s— whate v e r the y m ay

be

— are an a c c e pta

ble pric e to pa

y .” Id. a t *32. The c ourt furthe r fa

ulte d DHS for “ re fus[ing] to c onside r the c o sts a ssoc iate d with pre dic te d, like l y

dise nrollm e nt of thosenot subje c t to the public c h arge de te rm i nation.” Id. W e be gin with the

obse rva tion tha

t DHS a ddre sse d at le n gth the c osts a nd be ne fits a ssoc iate d with theFina l R ule
. Se e 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,300–03 (sum m a riz ing c osts a

nd be ne fits); i d. a t 41,312–14 (e stim a ting c osts to he a lth c are provide rs, sta

te s, a nd loc a litie s); id. a t 41,463–81 (re sponding to va rious c om m e nts
on c osts a nd be ne fits); id . at 41,485–41,489 (re s ponding to Exe c utive Orde rs

58re quiring a

n a sse ssm e nt of the c osts a nd be ne fits of re gula

tory a lte rna tive s). 1 8 In
a ddition, DHS pre

pa re d an “ Ec onom ic Ana ly sis Supple m e nta l Inform a t ion for Ana ly sis of Public B e ne fits Progra m s,”
www.re gula

tions.gov/doc

um e nt? D= USC IS-2010-0012-63742. DHS’ s ana ly s is be ga

n by sta ting, “ This rule will im

pose ne w c osts on this popula tion a pply ing to a djust sta

tus . . . tha

t a re subje c t to the public c ha

rge ground of ina dm i ssibility .” 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,300. It e stim a te d the dire c t c osts to the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt of the rule to be $35,202,698 a nnua lly . Som e of the se dire c t
c osts to the

fe de ra l gove rnm e nt would beoffse t by “ individua ls who m ay

c hoose to dise nroll from or fore go e nrollm e nt in a public be ne fits progra

m .” Id. DHS
e stim a te d the re duc tion in fe d e ra l tra nsfe r paym e nts would be a bout $2.47 billion
annua lly
. Id. a t

41,301. It furthe r e stim a te d tha t the re would be a

re duc tion in sta

t e transfe r paym e nts of a

bout $1.01 billion a

nnua lly
. Id. DHS a lso a c knowle dge d that the Fina l R

ule would im

pose dire c t a

nd indire c t c osts on individua ls a nd
e ntitie s. The first of the se , it sugge ste d, we re “ fam ilia riz a tion c osts,” whic h wa s “ a

1 8 Inde e d, DHS’ s notic e is quitec om pre he nsive . In no fe w e r tha n 216 pa ge s (whic h DHS e s tim a te d would ta

ke sixte e n to twe nty

hours to re a d ), DHS e xpla ine d the c ha nge s propose d, e stim a te d c osts a nd sa vings, a nd a ddre s se d sc ore s of c om m e n ts on topic s ra

nging from

pote ntia l public -he a lth c onc e rns to whe the r DHS should c onside r im

m i grants’ c re dit sc ore s. Se e ge n e rally 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,292–508. 59dire c t c ost of the rule
. ” Id. Orga niz a tions tha

t work with im

m igra nt c om m unitie s would simila

rly e xpe rie nc e indire c t c osts of fa m ilia riz a tion. Id. Else whe re , DHS re sponde d to c om m e n ts c l a im ing tha

t the Fina l R

ule would
c a use a lie ns to dise nroll from or fore go e nrollm e nt in publicbe ne fit progra m s a nd that this “ would be de trim e n t a l to the fina n c ia l sta bility and e c o nom

y of
c om m unitie s, Sta

te s , loc a l orga

niz a tions, hospita

l s, sa fe ty ne t provide rs, founda tions, a nd he a lthc are c e nte rs.” Id. a t 41,312; s e e also id. (sugge sting tha t the Fina l R ule would inc re a se the use of hospita l e m e rge n c y room s). DHS ide ntifie d thre e c a te gorie s of a lie ns who m ight be a ffe c te d by the Fina l R

ule . First, the re are
a lie ns who a

re e ntitle d to publicbe n e fits a n d se e k to im

m igrate or a djust sta

tus. The ir re c e ipt of som e public be ne fits a re sim ply not c ove re d by

the rule . DHS note d, for e xam

ple , tha t “ e m e rge nc y

re sponse , im

m uniz a tion, e duc a tion, or [c e rta i n] soc ia l se rvic e s” are not inc lude d in its re vise d de finition of “

public be ne fits.” Id
. On the othe r hand, the re are public be ne fits to whic h suc h a n a lie n is
e ntitle d but whic h will be c onside re d by DHS in its de te rm ination whe the r suc h
a lie n is a “ public c ha

rge .” DHS “ a c k

nowle dge [d] tha

t individual s subje c t to this rule m a y de c line to e nroll in, or m ay c hoose to dise nroll from , public be ne fits for whic h the y

m ay be e ligibleunde r PRW OR A, in orde r to a

v oid ne gative
c onse q ue nc e s a s a re s ult of this fina l rule .” Id. DHS c ould not e stim a te how m any
60a lie ns in this c at e gory would be a ffe c te d by

the Fina l R

u l e “ be c a use dat a lim ita tions provide

ne ithe r a pre c ise c o unt nor re a sona b le e stim a te of the num

be r of a lie n s who a

re both subje c t

to the public c ha

rge ground of ina dm issibility and
are e ligiblefor public be ne fits in theUnite d Stat e s.” Id. a t 41,313. The se c ond c a te g o ry

of a lie ns a

re those who a

re unla wfully in the Unite d Stat e s. The se are “ ge ne ra l ly ba rre d from re c e iving fe de ra l public be ne fits othe r tha n e m e rge nc y

a ssista nc e .” Id. (footnote om itte d). Ne ve rthe le ss, DHS
announc e d tha

t it will n ot c onside r “ for purpose s of a public c ha

rge ina dm issibility de te rm i nation whe the r a

pplic ants for a dm ission or a djustm e nt of sta tus a re
re c e iving food a ssista

nc e through othe r program s, suc h a s e xc lusive ly sta t e -funde d program s, food ba

nks, a nd e m e rge nc y

se rvic e s, nor will DHS disc oura ge individua ls from

se e king suc h a ssista

nc e . ” Id. Third a re those a lie n s a

nd U.S. c itiz e ns who a

re not subje c t to the Fina l R ule , but e rrone ously

think the y

are and dise nroll from

public be ne fits out of a

n
a bunda nc e of c a u t ion. Id. Dise nrollm e nt by this c at e gory

of pe rsons should not be influe n c e d by

the Fina l R

ule be c a use the i r re c e ipt of publicbe ne fits will “ not be
c ounte d a ga inst or m a de a ttributa ble to im m igra nt fa m ily m e m be rs who a

re subje c t to this rule .” Id. DHS unde rstood “ the pote ntia l e ffe c ts of c onfusion” ove r the
sc ope o f the Fina l R

ule tha t m ight le a d to ove r-dise nrollm e nt. DHS sta te d tha t it
61would “ issue c le ar guida nc e tha t ide ntifie s the groups of individua l s who a re not subje c t to the rule .” Id. The Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia pointe d out tha t DHS’ s re sponse “ fa ils to disc uss c o sts be i ng borne by the sta te s, hospita ls, or othe rs, othe r tha n to sa y DHS will issue guida nc e in a n e ffort to m i tiga

te c onfusion.” C

ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *34. Thec ourt furthe r c ritic iz e d DHS for “ flatly
re fus[ing] to c onside r the c osts a ssoc iate d with pre dic te d , like l y dise nrollm e nt of those not subje c t to the public c ha rge de te rm ination.” Id. a t *35. W e think se ve ra l points m ust be c onside re d he re . First, the c osts tha t the sta te s, loc a litie s, a

nd va rious e ntitie s (suc h a s he a lthc are provide rs) m ay suffe r are indire c t. Nothing in the Fina l R ule im pose s c osts on those

gove rnm e nts or e ntitie s; the Fina l R

ule doe s not re gula

te sta te s, loc a litie s, a

nd priva te e ntitie s. Dise nrollm e n t will bethe c onse que nc e of e i the r (1) the fre e c hoic e of a lie ns who wish to a void a ny ne g ative re p e rc ussions for the ir im m igration sta

tus tha t would
re sult from

a c c e p t ing public be ne fits, or (2) the m i sta k e n dise nrollm e nt of a lie ns or U.S. c itiz e ns who c an re c e ive public be ne fits without a ny c o nse que n c e s for the ir
re side nc y sta tus. DHS a ddre sse d both groups. DHS sa id it did not ha

ve data to
c a lc ulat e the siz e of the first group (a n d, pre sum a

bly , the va l ue of the be ne fits from whic h the y

will dise nroll), a

nd it ha d no wa

y to e stim a te the se c ond. 84 Fe d. R e g.
62a t 41,313. DHS sta t e d tha t it would try

to c om pe nsat e for the latte r group’ s e rror by publishing c le ar guida

nc e , and it a l so note d tha

t othe r orga

n i z a tions, public

and priva te , would ha

v e an inc e ntive to providea c c ura te inform a tion to pe rsons who
m ight m ista

ke nly dise nroll. Id. a t 41,486. Se c ond, DHS did a c k

nowle dge the indire c t c osts the Fina l R ule m ight im pose downstre am . . . on sta

te and loc a l e c onom ic s, la rge and sm a ll busine sse s, a

nd individua

ls. For e xam

ple , the rule m ight re sult in re duc e d re ve n u e s for he a lthc are provide rs pa rtic ipating in M e d ic a id, c om pa nie s tha t m anufa c t

ure m e dic a l supplie s or pha rm a c e u t ic a ls, groc e ry re ta ile rs pa

rtic i pating in SNAP, a gric u ltura l produc e rs who grow foods tha

t a re e l igible for purc ha se using SNAP be ne fits, or la ndlords pa

rtic ipating in fe de ra lly

funde d housing progra

m s. Id . It did not a

tte m pt to qua ntify those c osts, but it re c o gniz e d the ove ra ll e ffe c t of the Fina l R

ule , a nd tha t is suffic ie nt. Se e Irv ineMe d. C tr. v . Thompson , 275 F.3d 823, 835 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [T] he Se c re ta ry a c knowle dge d tha

t som e M e dic are be ne fic ia rie s would possibly

have to shoulde r a

n a dditiona l fina

n c ia l burde n a s a
re sult of there pe a l of the c a rry -forwa rd provision. This a

c knowle dgm e nt did not
re nde r the Se c re ta

ry ’ s rule m aking sta

te m e nt or re lia

nc e upon it a

rbitra ry , howe v e r.” (inte rna l c ita

tion om itte d)) .

63Third, DHS is not a re gula tory a ge n c y like EPA, FC C , or OSHA. Those
a ge nc ie s ha

ve broa d m andate s to re gula te dire c t ly e ntire industrie s or pra c tic e s,
som e tim e s on no m ore instruc tion from C ongre ss tha

n to do so in the

“ p ublic
c onve nie nc e , inte re st or ne c e ssity ,” 47 U.S.C . § 303 (FC C ), or a s “ a ppropria te and
ne c e ssa ry ,” 42 U.S.C . § 7412(n)(1)(A) (EPA). W he n C o ngre ss ha s ve s te d suc h broa d re gula

tory a uthority in a ge nc ie s, the Supre m e C o urt ha s som e tim e s insiste d that the a ge nc ie s pe rform

som e kind of a

c ost-be ne fit a

na ly sis. Se e , e .g. , Mic higan
v . EPA , 135 S. C t. 2699, 2707 (2015) (EPA c a nnot “ ignore c o st whe n de c i ding whe the r to re gula

te powe r pla

nts” ); Indus. Union De

p’t, AFL-C

IO v . Am. Pe trole um Inst. , 448 U.S. 607, 644 (1980) (plura lity opinion) (OSHA m

ust

“ unde rtake som e c ost-be ne fit a n a ly sis be fore [it] prom

ulga te s a ny [sa fe ty an d he a lth] sta

nda rd” ). But se e Am. Te

x tile Mfs. Inst. Inc . v . Donov an , 452 U.S. 490, 510–11 (1981) (“ C o n gre ss use s spe c ific la ngua ge whe n inte n d ing tha t a n a ge nc y
e nga ge in c ost-be n e fit a

na ly sis.” ). B y

c ontra st, DHS is de fining a sim ple sta tutory te rm
— “ public c h arge ”

—

to de te rm ine whe the r an a lie n is a d m issible . Its only
m andate is to re g ulate im m igration a

nd na tura l iz a tion, not to se c ure tra nsfe r pa ym e nts to sta

te gove rnm e nts or e nsure the sta bility of the he a lth c are industry
. Any e ffe c ts on those

e n titie s are indire c t a

nd we l l be y ond DHS’ s c ha rge and
e xpe rtise . Eve n if it c o uld e stim a te the c osts to the sta te s, loc a litie s, a

nd he a lthc are
64provide rs, DHS ha s a m andate from

C ongre ss with re spe c t to a dm itting a lie ns to the U nite d State s. As DHS e xpla ine d, DHS doe s not be lie ve tha t it is sound polic

y to ignore the longsta nding se lf-suffic ie nc y

goa ls se t forth by

C ongre ss or to a dm it or gra nt a d j ustm e n t of sta

tus a pplic at ions of a lie ns who a re like ly to re c e ive public be ne fits de signa te d in this rule

to m e e t the ir ba sic living ne e ds in . . . hope that doing so m ight a lle viate food a

nd housing inse c urity , im

prove public he a lth, de c re a se c osts to sta te s a nd loc a litie s , or be tte r gua

rante e he a l th c are provide r re im burse m e nts. DHS doe s not be lie ve tha t C ongre ss inte n de d for DHS to a dm iniste r [§ 212] in a

m anne r that fa ils to a c c ount for a lie ns’ re c e ipt of food, m e dic a l, a

nd housing bene fits so a s to he lp a l ie ns be c ome se lfsuffic ie nt. 84 Fe d. R e g. at 41,314. Eve n ha d DHS be e n a ble to c a lc ulat e the indire c t c osts that sta te s , loc a litie s, a

nd he a l thc are provide rs m ight be ar a s a re sult of theFina l R ule , it is not c le ar what DHS wa s suppose d to ba la nc e . R a the r, it wa s suffic i e nt— and not a

rbitra ry and c a pric ious— for DHS to c onside r whe the r, in the long te rm , the ove ra ll be n e fits of its policy c ha nge will outwe igh the c osts of
re ta ining thec urre nt polic y . 2. Public -He a l th C onc e rns The Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia a lso found tha t DHS did not suffic ie ntly
re spond to c e rta i n public -he a l th c onc e rns. C ity & C ty . of San Franc i

sc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a

t *35–37. Spe c ific a lly , the c ourt worrie d tha t by dise nrolling from public -he a lth be ne fits likeM e d ic a id, pe o ple m ay forgo va c c inations, whic h c ould
65have se rious public -he a lth c onse que nc e s. Id. The distric t c ourt a lso pointe d out that the 1 999 Fie ld Guidanc e de c line d to de fine “ public c ha

rge ” to inc lude re c e ipt of “ h e a lth a

nd nutrition be

ne fits” out of fe ar of possiblepublic -he a l th
ra m ific a tions. Id. a t *37 (c iting 64 Fe d. R e g. at 28,692). DHS not only

a ddre sse d the se c onc e rns dire c tly , it c ha nge d its Fina l R

ule in
re sponse to the c om

m e nts. 84 Fe d. R e g. at

41,297. W ith re spe c t to va c c ine s, DHS sta te d tha t it “ doe s not inte nd to re stric t the a c c e ss of va c c i ne s for c hildre n or
a dults or intend to disc oura ge individuals form obta ining thene c e ssa

ry va c c ine s to pre v e n t va c c ine -pre v e nta

b le dise a se s.” Id. a t 41,384. The Fina l R u le “ doe s not
c onside r re c e ipt of M e d i c a id by a c hild unde r a ge 21, or during a pe rson’ s pre g na nc y , to c onstitute re c e ipt of publicbe ne fits.” DHS sa id tha t would a ddre ss

“ a substa ntia l portion, though not a ll, of the va c c inations issue
. ” Id. Ac c ordingly , DHS “ be lie ve s tha

t va c c ine s would still be

ava ila ble for c hildre n a

nd a dults e ve n

if the y dise nroll from

M e dic a id.” Id. a t 41,385. B oth the Northe rn Distric t of C a l ifornia and the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington e xpre sse d c onc e rn tha t the Fina l R

ule wa s a de pa rture from

the 1999 Fie l d Guidanc e , whic h ra ise d the va c c ine issue , an d tha t the 1999 Fie ld Guidanc e ha d “ e n ge nde re d re lia

nc e .” C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 2019 W L 5100718, a t *37; se e also W

ashington , 2019 W L 5100717, a t *19. Theque stion is not whe t he r
66an a g e n c y

c an c ha nge a polic y tha t pe ople have c om e to re ly on; c le arly , it c an. The re a l que s tion is whe the r the a ge nc y ha s a c knowle d ge d the c ha nge and
e xpla ine d the re a sons for it. DHS knew we l l tha t it wa s a dopting a

c h an ge in polic y ; tha

t wa s the whole purpose of this rule m ak ing e x e rc ise
. Se e Enc ino Motorc ars , 136 S. C t. at 2126 (holding tha t a De p artm e nt of La

bor re g ulation wa s

“ issue d without . . . re a sone d e xpla nation” whe re the re wa s “ de c a de s of industry
re lia nc e on the De pa

rtm e nt’ s prior polic y ” and the ne w rule wa s “ offe re d [with] ba re ly any e xpla nation” ) ; IN

S v . Yue h-Shaio Yang , 519 U.S. 26, 32 (1996) (distinguishing a

n “ an irrationa l de pa

rture from

[e s ta blishe d] polic y ” from

“ an
avowe d a lte ra tion of it” ). “ [I] t suffic e s tha t the ne w polic y

is pe rm i ssible unde r the sta tute , tha t the re are good re a sons for it, a n d tha t the a ge nc y b e lie v e

s it to be be tte r, whic h the c onsc ious c h ange of c ourse a de quate ly indic a te s.” Fox Te le v ision Stations , 556 U.S. a t 515. B e c a

use DHS ha s a de quate ly e xpla ine d the
re a s ons for the Fina l R

ule , it ha s de m onstra

te d a strong like l ihood of suc c e ss on the
m e rits. V. OTHER FAC TOR S W e have c onc lude d tha

t DHS is like ly

to suc c e e d on the m e rits. W e re we
re vie wing the pre lim ina

ry injunc tions on dire c t re vie w, this would be suffic ie nt to
re ve rse the distric t c ourts’ orde rs. Se e Trump v . Haw ai’i , 138 S. C t. at 2423. B u t
67be c a

use we are he re on DHS’ s m otion for a sta y , DHS be ars the burde n of
satisfy ing thre e a dditiona l fa c tors: tha t DHS will suffe r som e irre pa ra ble ha rm , tha t the b a la nc e of the ha

rdships fa vors a sta y , an d tha t the sta y is in thepublic inte re st. N k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 434. A. Irre

parable Harm W e first c onside r whe the r DHS ha s shown tha t it “ will be irre pa

ra bly injure d
a bse nt a sta y .” N k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 434 (quoting Hilton , 481 U.S. a t 776). The
c la im e d irre pa

ra b le injury m ust be lik e ly to oc c ur; “ sim

ply showing some

‘ p ossibility

of irre pa ra b le injury ’ ” is insuffic ie nt. Id. (c ita t ion om itte d). DHS ha s
c arrie d its burde n on this fa c tor. DHS c onte nds tha

t a s long a s the Fina l R

ule is e n joine d , DHS will gra

nt la w ful-pe rm ane nt-re s ide nt sta tus to a lie ns whom the Se c re ta ry would othe rwise de e m

like ly to be c om e public c ha

rge s in the e xe rc ise of his disc re tion. DHS c urre ntly ha s no pra c tic a l m e a

n s of re visiting public -c ha

rge de te rm inations onc e m a de , so the injunc tions will ine vita bly re sult in the

grant of LPR

sta tus to a lie ns who, unde r the Se c re ta ry ’ s inte rpre t ation of thesta tute , a re like ly to be c om e public c ha

rge s. The State s do not de ny

tha t LPR sta tus m i ght be irre voc a

bly gran te d to som e
a lie ns, but the y

c la i m tha t DHS ha s “ e xa gge ra t e [d] the e ffe c t of the injunc tion” be c a use the public -c ha

rge e xc lusion ha s “ ne ve r pla y e d a signific ant role in im m igration. In c ontra st, in just 8 of the 14 Pla intiff Sta

te s [in the W

ashington
68c a se ] ove r 1.8 m illion la w fully pre se nt re side nts m ay be drive n from

fe de ra l a nd sta te a s sista nc e progra

m s if the injunc tion is lifte d .” The y argue tha t pre se rving the sta tus quo will not ha

rm DHS pe nding a djudic a tion on the m e rits, e spe c ia lly
c onside ring tha

t the Fina l R

ule re pla c e s a

polic y tha t ha d be e n in pla c e for de c a de s . Se ve ra l points e m e rge from the pa rtie s’ c la i m s. First, the State s a p pe ar to
c onc e de tha

t de c isions to gra

nt a djustm e nt of sta

tus to a lie n s who c o uld othe rwise not be e l igible are not re ve rsible . Se c ond, a l though theState s argue tha t “ public
c ha rge ” e xc ulsions ha

ve not be e n a

n im porta nt c om pone nt of our im

m i gra tion
sc he m e in the pa st, the whole point of DHS’ s Fina l R ule is tha t “ public c ha

rge ” ina d m issibility

ha s be e n unde re nforc e d. M ore ove r, to the e xte nt the State s are c onte sting the m a gnitude of the ha rm to DHS, the c la im

is irre le va

nt he re . W e have sa id tha t this “ ana ly sis foc use s on irre pa ra bility , ‘ irre spe c t ive of the m a gnitude of the injury .’ ” C alifornia v. Azar , 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Simula, Inc . v . Autoliv , Inc
. , 175 F.3d 716, 725 (9th C ir. 1999)). B ut e ve n if we look a t the m a gnitude , the State s’ own
e vide nc e is double -e dge d. The State s c la im that the y will suffe r ha

rm be c a use
m illions of persons will dise nroll to a void pote n tia l im

m igration c onse que nc e s. This se e m s to prove DHS’ s point. If millions of “ l awfully pre s e nt re side nts” are
69c urre ntly

re c e iving public be n e fits a nd m ay c hoose to dise nroll ra

the r tha n be found to be a “ public c ha

rge ” and ina d

m i ssible , the ha

rm c ite d by DHS is not only irre pa ra ble , but signific ant. Fina lly , we think the te na bility of DHS’ s pa s t pra c tic e is of no im port he re . C ongre ss ha s gra

nte d DHS the a

uthority to e na c t a

nd a lte r im

m igration re gula

tions
and DHS ha s done tha

t, a n d it ha s done so in a

wa y tha t c om p orts with its le ga l
a uthority . Thus, a s of Oc tobe r 15, 2019, DHS ha d a n obliga tion to de ny

a d m ission to those like l y

to be c om e public c ha

rge , a s de fine d by

the Fina l R

ule . This is true
re ga rdle s s of DHS’ s prior polic y . As a c onse q ue nc e , the pre lim ina

ry injunc tions will forc e DHS to gra

nt sta t us to those

not le g a l ly

e n title d to it. DHS ha s satisfie d its burde n to show irrepa

ra ble ha rm to the gove rnm e n t a

bse n t a sta y of the injunc tions. B
. Balanc e of Hardships and Public Inte re st Sinc e DHS ha s satisfie d

the first two fa c tors, we proc e e d to the fina l two: ba la nc e of e quitie s and the public inte re st. N k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 435. “ B e c a

use the gove rnm e nt is a

pa rty , we c onside r [the se two fa c tors] toge the r.” C alifornia v

. Azar , 911 F.3d a

t 581. To ba la nc e the e quitie s, we c onside r the ha rdships e a c h pa

rty is like ly to suffe r if the othe r pre va ils. N . C he y e nne Tribev . N

orton , 503 F.3d 836, 843–44
70(9th C ir. 2007) (c iting A moc o Prod. C o. v . Vill. of Gambe ll , 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). W e have disc usse d a bove the irre pa

ra ble , non-m o ne ta

ry ha rm to the gove rnm e nt. On theothe r hand, the State s c onte n d tha t the y fa c e fina n c i a l, public
he a lth, a nd a dm i nistra

tive ha rm s if the Fina l R

ule ta ke s e ffe c t a

nd othe rwise
e ligibleindividuals dise nroll from public be ne fits. The se e ffe c t s a re indire c t
e ffe c ts of the Fina l R

ule and the y

are la rge ly short-te rm , sinc e the y

will only re sult during the pe nde nc y

of the p roc e e dings in the distric t c ourts a

nd a ny a ppe a ls to this
c ourt a nd the Supre m e C ourt. 1 9 Those proc e e dings a re like ly to be c onduc te d on
an e xpe dite d ba sis, limi t ing furthe r any pote ntia l ha

rm to be c onside re d by

this
c ourt. DHS doe s not dispute that the State s will inc ur som e fina nc ia l ha rm if the Fina l R ule is not sta

y e d. It c annot, be c a

use DHS re pe a te dly a ddre sse d the pote ntia l c o sts to the

State s in its Final R

ule
. S e e , e .g. , 84 Fe d. R e b. at

41,300, 41,312–14, 41,385–85, 41,469–70, 41,474. And while ordina rily , we do not
c onside r pure ly

e c onom ic ha

rm irre pa ra ble , we have c onc lude d tha t “ suc h ha rm is irre pa ra ble ” whe n “ the sta

te s will not be

a ble to re c ove r m one ta

ry dam a ge s .” C alifornia v. Azar , 911 F.3d a t 581. Ye t the State s’ fina nc ia l c onc e rns will be
m itiga te d to som e e xte nt. As DHS e xpla ine d in the Fina l R ule , dise nrollm e nt from

1 9 This is not to sa

y that the State s will not c ontinue to inc ur harm s a fte r the litiga tion te rm i nate s, but the se pote ntia l ha rm s a re not re le va

nt to the que stion of a pre l im ina ry injunc tion or a

sta y . 71public be ne fits m e a ns a re duc t ion in fe de ra l a

nd sta te tra nsfe r paym e nts, so the Stat e s will re a liz e som e sa vings in e xpe nditure s . 84 Fe d . R e g. at 41,485–86. Ne ve rthe le ss, we c onside r the ha rm s to the State s, e ve n

if not re a dily

qua ntifia ble , signific ant. B a la nc ing the se ha

rm s is pa rtic ula rly diffic ult in this c a se . First, the ha rm s
are n ot c om

pa ra b l e . DHS’ s ha

rm is not m o n e ta

ry , but progra

m m a tic . The polic y be hind C ongre ss’ s de c ision not to a dm it thosewho a

re like ly to be c om e a

public
c ha rge m ay have a fisc a l c om

pone n t, but it is not the

re a son for DHS’ s Fina l R ule , nor ha s DHS a

rgue d fina

nc ia l ha rm a s a re a son for se e king a

sta y . B y c ontra st, the Stat e s’ proffe re d ha

rm s a re la rge ly fina nc ia l. Se c ond, both pa

rtie s’ proffe re d ha rm s a re , to a de gre e , spe c ulat ive . W e c annot sa y for c e rta in how m any re side n ts of the pla intiff sta

t e s a n d c ountie s will disenroll from public be n e fits progra

m s, nor how m uc h a ny ove r-dise nrollm e nt will c ost the State s . Nor c an we sa y for c e rta i n how m any a lie ns m ight be found a dm issibleduring the pe nde nc y of the pre l im ina ry injunc tion, a

nd would ha

v e be e n found ina dm issibleunde r the Fina l R ule . Give n the la

rge ly pre dic tive nature of both pa rtie s’ a lle ge d ha

rm s, we c annot sta te with a ny c onfide nc e whic h is gre a te r. For the sa m e re a sons, the public inte re st in this c a se is like wise diffic ult to
c a lc ulat e with pre c ision. DHS c onte nds it is in the public ’ s inte re st not to gra nt
72im

m igration sta

t us to pe rsons like ly to be c om e public c ha rge s. The Stat e s c onte nd that it is in the

public ’ s inte re st to a

void inc re a se d a dm i nistra tive and public -he a lth
c osts. B o th of the se c o nte ntions a re like ly true . B u t on ba la

nc e , we hav e fe w sta nda rds for a nnounc ing whic h inte re st is gre a te r. W e re c e ntly

obse rve d tha

t “ ba la nc ing the e quitie s is not a n e xa c t sc ie nc e .” Azar , 911 F.3d a

t 582. Inde e d, Justic e Fra nkfurte r onc e re m arke d tha t the ba la nc ing of the e quitie s wa s m e re ly “ la wy e rs’ ja rgon for c hoosing be t

we e n
c onflic ting public inte re sts.” Youngstown She e t & TubeC o. v . Saw y e r , 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952) (Fra

nkfurte r, J., c onc urring). W he t he r the sta

y is gra nte d or de nie d, one pa

rty ’ s c osts will be

inc urre d a

nd the othe r a v oide d. In the e nd, the

“ c ritic a l ” fa c tors a

re tha t DHS ha s m

uste re d a strong showing of like lihood of
suc c e ss on the m e rits a

n d som e irre pa

ra ble ha rm . N k e n , 556 U.S. a

t 434. Those fa c t ors we igh in fa

v or of gra nting a sta y , de spite the pote ntia l ha rm s to the State s. And for tha

t re a son, the sta

y is in thepublic inte re st. VII. C ONC LUSION The m otion for a

sta y of the pre l im ina

ry injunc tion in Nos. 19-17213 a nd 19-17214 is GR

ANTED. The pe tition for sta y of the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion in No. 19-35914 is GR

ANTED. The c a se s m ay

proc e e d c onsiste nt with this opinion.

73C

ity and C ounty of San Franc isc o, e t al v

. USC IS, e t al , No. 19-17213+ B YB EE, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring, pe rple xe d a nd pe rturbe d : I join the m a

jority opinion in full. I write

se pa ra te ly to e m p ha siz e two points— points tha t I fe e l m ust be m a de , but a

re be tte r sa id in a

se p ara te opinion. W e a s a nation a re e nga ge d in tita

nic struggle s ove r the future of im m igration in the

Unite d State s. The se are diffic ult c onve rsa tions. As a c ourt, the N inth C irc uit in pa

rtic ula r ha s fe lt the e ffe c ts of the re c e nt surge in im m igration. As weobse rve d la st y e ar with re s pe c t to the a sy lum proble m : W e have e xpe rie nc e d a

sta gge ring inc re a se in a s y l um a p plic a tions. Te n y e ars a go we re c e ive d a

bout 5,000 a

p plic a tions for a sy lum . In fisc a l y e ar 2018 we re c e ive d

a b out 97,000—

ne arly a twe n ty -fold inc re a s e . Our obliga tion to proc e ss the se a

pplic a tions in a

tim e ly m anne r, c onsiste nt with our sta tute s a nd re gula t ions, is overburde ne d. The c urre nt ba c klog of a sy lum c a se s e xc e e ds 200,000—a bout 26% of the

im m igration c ourts’ tota l ba c klog of ne arly 800,000 re m ova l c a se s. In the m e antim e , while a pplic a tions a

re proc e sse d, thousa

nds of a pplic ants who ha d be e n de ta ine d by im m igration a

uthoritie s ha

ve be e n re le a se d into theUnite d State s. E. Bay Sanc tuary C

ov e nant v . Trump , 932 F.3d 742, 754 (9th C i r. 2018) (c ita tions
om i tte d). B e c a

use of our proxim ity

to M e xic o, C e ntra l Am e ric a , a nd Ea st Asia , the b runt of the se c a se s will find the ir wa y into our c o urt. And we are we ll a ware that we are only

se e ing the m atte rs tha

t find the i r way

into fe de ra l c ourt, a

n d tha t the b urde ns of the inc re a se i n im m igration a

re borne not only

by our judge s, but by the m e n a nd wom e n in the e xe c utive branc h c ha rge d with e nforc i ng the im m igration la

ws. 

# F IL ED
DEC 5 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSOur c ourt ha s fa c e d a n unpre c e de nte d

inc re a se in e m e rge nc y

pe titions
arising out of the

a dm i nistra

tion’ s e fforts to a dm iniste r the im m igration la

ws a nd
se c ure our borde rs. The se c ontrove rsia l e fforts ha ve m e t with mixe d suc c e ss in our
c ourt a nd the Supre m e C ourt. Se e , e . g. , S ie rra C lub v . Trump , 929 F.3d 670 (9th C ir.) (c onstruc t ion of wa ll on theborde r with M e xic o ), stay issue d , 140 S. C t. 1 (2019) (m e m .); E. Bay

Sanc tuary C

ov e nant v . Trump , 932 F.3d 742 (9th C ir. 2018) (a lie ns e nte ring outside

a port of e ntry

are ine ligible for a sy lum ); Re ge nts of Univ

. of C al. v

. U.S. De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 908 F.3d 476 (9th C i r. 2018) (DAC A),
c e rt. grante d , 139 S. C t . 2779 (2019) (m e m .); Trump v . Haw ai’i , 878 F.3d 662 (9th C ir. 2017) (pe r c uriam ) (e ntry re stric tions), re v ’d , 138 S. C t. 2392 (2018); Flore s v . Se ssions , 862 F.3d 863 (9th C ir. 2017) (tre a tm e nt of de t a ine d a l ie n m inors unde r Flore s a gre e m e nt); Haw ai’i v . Trump , 859 F.3d 741 (9th C ir.) (pe r c uriam ) (tra ve l ba n), v ac ate d

as moot , 138 S. C t. 377 (2017) (m e m .); W ashington v . Trump , 847 F.3d 1151 (9th C ir.) (pe r c uriam ) (tra ve l ba n), c e rt. de nie d sub nom. Golde n v . W ashington , 138 S. C t. 448 (2017) (m e m . ). M y first point is tha

t e ve n a s we are e m

broile d in the s e c ontrove rsie s, no one should mista

ke our judgm e nts for our polic y pre fe re nc e s. W

h e the r “ the iron fist [or an e xte nde d ve lve t glove ] would be the pre fe ra ble polic y . . . . our thoughts on the e ffic a c y

of the one a

pproa c h ve rsus the othe r are be s ide the point, sinc e our

2busine ss is not to judge the wisdom

of the Nat iona l Gove rnm e nt’ s polic y .” Am. Ins. Ass’n v . Garame n d

i , 539 U.S. 396, 427 (2003); se e Sale v . Haitian C

trs. C ounc il, Inc

. , 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993) (“ The wisdom of the polic y

c hoic e s m a de by Pre side nts R e a g an, B ush, a nd C linton is not a m a tte r for our c onside ra tion.” ); Loc hne r v . N

e w York , 198 U.S. 45, 69 (1905) (Ha rlan, J., disse nting) (“ Whe the r or not this be

wise le gisla

t ion it is not the

provinc e of the c o urt to inquire . Unde r our sy ste m s of gove rnm e nt the c ourts a re not c o nc e rne d with thewisdom or polic y of le gisla tion.” ). Oh, I a m not so na ive a s to think tha t a sim ple de c la ra tion of judic i a l
ne utra lity will que ll inquiry

into judge s’ ba c k grounds, prior writings, a nd opinions. The battle s ove r judic ia l nom inations provide am ple proof tha

t our ge ne ra tion of la wy e rs be ar a

dive rse se t of a ssum

ptions a b out the nature of la

w, prope r m ode s of
c onstitutiona

l inte rpre tation, a

n d the role of the judic ia

ry . The se are fa ir de bate s
and the y are like ly to c ontinue for som e tim e . W e c an only hope tha t ove r tim e our diffe re nc e s c an be re solve d by re a son a nd pe rsua sion ra

the r tha n by politic s by othe r m e a ns. B ut I don’ t know of a ny judge

— a t le a st not this judge

— w ho c an sa

y that e ve ry opinion a nd judgm e nt she issue d wa s in a c c ord with he r pre fe rre d polic y outc om e s. “ [I] n our priva te opinions, [we ] ne e d not c onc ur in C ongre s s’ polic ie s to hold its e na c t

m e nts c o nstitutiona

l. Judic i a lly

we m ust tole ra te what pe rsona lly we
3m ay

re ga rd a s a le gisla

tive m ista ke .” Harisiade

s v . Shaughne

ssy , 342 U.S. 580, 590 (1952). M y se c ond point is le ss politic . In this c a se , we are c a lle d upon to re vie w the m e rits of DHS’ s Fina l R ule through the le ns of the judic ia l re vie w provisions of the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t, 5 U.S.C . § 706. Our re vie w is quite
c irc um s c ribe d. W e c an s e t a s ide a ge nc y

a c tion if it is c ontra

ry to la w, if it e xc e e ds the a ge nc y ’ s jurisdic tion or a uthority , or if the a ge nc y

fa ile d to follow proper proc e d ure . Id. § 706(2)(B )–(D). Those are la rge ly le gal judgm e nts, whic h we c an
a ddre s s through the

tra d itiona l tools judge s ha ve long use d. W ith re s pe c t to the polic y be h ind the a ge nc y ’ s a c t ion, we are la rge ly re le gate d to re vie wing the a c tion for arbitra rine ss a nd c a pric e . Id. § 706(2)(A). Tha t is not a ve ry rigorous sta

nda rd
and, a s a re sult, a

n a ge nc y ha s broa d disc re tion to a dm iniste r the progra m s
e ntruste d to it by C ongre ss. C

f. Vt. Yank

e e N uc le ar Pow e r C

orp. v . N at. Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc

. , 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978) (“ [F] unda m e nta l polic y

que stions
a ppropria te ly re solve d in C ongre ss . . . a re n ot subje c t to re e xam ination in the fe de ra l c o urts unde r the guise of judic ia l re v ie w of a ge nc y a c tion.” ). In the im m igration c onte xt, wha

te ve r dia logue we have be e n ha ving with the
a dm inistra

tion ove r its polic ie s, we are a poor c onve rsant. W e are lim ite d in wha t
we c an sa y and in our a

bility

— e ve n if a ny one thought wewe re qua lifie d to do
4so—

to sha pe our im m igration polic ie s. W e la c k the tools of inquiry , inve stiga tion,
and fa c t-finding tha

t a re sponsiblepolic ym ake r should ha ve a t its disposa

l. In sum , the A PA is the m e a ge re st of c he c ks on the e xe c utive
. W e are not the prope r foil to this or a ny othe r a dm inistra

t ion a s it c ra fts our im

m i gra tion polic ie s . B y c onstitutiona

l de sign, thebranc h tha

t is qua lifie d to e s ta

blish im m igration polic y

and c he c k a

ny e xc e s se s in the im

ple m e ntation of tha

t polic y is C ongre ss. Se e U.S. C O N S T . Art. I, § 8, c l. 4. And, so fa r a s we c an te ll from

our
m ode st pe rc h in the Ninth C irc uit, C ongre ss is no pla c e to be found in the se de bate s. W e have se e n c a se a fte r c a se c om e through our c ourts, se rious a nd
e arne st e fforts, e ve n

a s the y are c ontrove rsia l, to a ddre ss the nation’ s im m igration
c ha lle nge s. Ye t we have se e n littlee nga ge m e nt a nd no a c tua l le gisla

tion from C ongre ss. It m a tt e rs not to m e a s a judge whe the r C ongre ss e m bra c e s or disa pprove s of the a dm inistra t ion’ s a c tions, but it is tim e for a fe c kle ss C ongre ss to
c om e to the ta

ble and gra

pple with the s e issue s. Don’ t le ave the ta b l e and e xpe c t us to c le an up.

51 City and County of San Francisco, et al v. USCIS , et al , No. 19

- 17213 + OWENS, C ircuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part : While I concur with the majority’s jurisdiction analysis, I otherwise respectfully dissent. In light of the : (1) government’s heavy burden due to the standard of review , (2) opaqueness of the legal question s before us, (3) lack of irreparable harm to the government at this early stage, (4) likelihood of substantial injury to the plaintiffs, and (5) equities involved , I would deny the government’s motion s to stay and let th ese case s proceed in the ordinary course. See Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 427, 433

- 34 (2009) ( holding that a “stay is an ‘intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review,’” and “[t] he party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [judicial] discretio n” (citation omitted)). 

# FILED DEC 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS