FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOLANY PADILLA; IBIS GUZMAN;

BLANCA ORANTES; BALTAZAR

VASQUEZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S.

CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PROTECTION; UNITED STATES

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES; TAE D.JOHNSON, Acting

Director of ICE; ALEJANDRO

MAYORKAS, Secretary of DHS;

CHRIS MAGNUS, Commissioner of

CBP; UR M. JADDOU, Director of

USCIS; MARC J. MOORE, Seattle

Field Office Director, ICE;

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR

IMMIGRATION REVIEW; MERRICK B.

GARLAND, Attorney General, United

States Attorney General; LOWELL

CLARK, Warden of the Northwest

Detention Center in Tacoma,

Washington; CHARLES INGRAM,

Warden of the Federal Detention

Center in SeaTac, Washington;

No. 19-35565

D.C. No.

2:18-cv-00928-

MJP

ORDER
2 PADILLA V. ICE

DAVID SHINN, Director; JAMES

JANECKA, Warden of the Adelanto

Detention Facility,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &

HUMAN SERVICES, FKA Department

of Social Services; OFFICE OF

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; XAVIER

BECERRA, Secretary of HHS; SCOTT

LLOYD, Director of ORR; CHRIS

MAGNUS, Commissioner of CBP;

ELIZABETH GODFREY, Acting

Director of Seattle Field Office, ICE,

Defendants.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed July 29, 2022

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Sidney R. Thomas, and

Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

Order
PADILLA V. ICE 3

SUMMARY*

Immigration

Following the Supreme Court’s order vacating the

judgment of this court, 953 F.3d 1134, and remanding to this

court for further consideration in light of Department of

Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020),

the panel remanded to the district court with instructions to

vacate the preliminary injunction and for further

consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in

Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022), Garland v. Aleman

Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), and Thuraissigiam.

COUNSEL

Lauren C. Bingham (argued), Counsel; Sarah S. Wilson and

Erez Reuveni, Assistant Directors; William C. Peachey,

Director; BrianBoynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney

General; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for DefendantsAppellants.

Matt Adams (argued), Leila Kang, and Aaron Korthuis,

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington;

Trina A. Realmuto and Kristin Macleod-Ball, National

Immigration Litigation Alliance, Brookline, Massachusetts;

Judy Rabinovitz, Michael Tan, and Anand Balakrishnan,

ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project New York, New York;

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 PADILLA V. ICE

Emma Winger, American Immigration Council, Washington,

D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler

Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York;

Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and

Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler

Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for

Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of

Immigration Appeals Members.

Erin K. Earl, Julie Wilson-McNerney, and Anna Mouw

Thompson, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington, for

Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers, Pretrial Justice Institute, and Center for Legal and

Evidence-Based Practices.

Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Andrew R. W.

Hughes, Kristin Beneski, and Brendan Selby, Assistant

Attorneys General; Office of the Attorney General, Seattle,

Washington; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Sacramento,

California; Phil Weiser,Attorney General, Denver, Colorado;

William Tong, Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut;

Kathleen Jennings, AttorneyGeneral,Wilmington, Delaware;

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; Clare

E. Connors, Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawaii; Kwame

Raoul, Attorney General, Chicago, Illinois; Brian E. Frosh,

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Maura Healey,

Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts; Dana Nessel,

Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan; Keith Ellison,

Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; Aaron D. Ford,

Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada; Gurbir S. Grewal,

Attorney General; Glenn J. Moramarco, Assistant Attorney

General; Marie Soueid, Deputy Attorney General; Office of
PADILLA V. ICE 5

the Attorney General, Trenton, New Jersey; Hector Balderas,

Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Peter F. Neronha,

Attorney General, Providence, Rhode Island; Ellen F.

Rosenblum, Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Thomas J.

Donovan Jr., Attorney General, Montpelier, Vermont; Mark

R. Herring, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; for Amici

Curiae Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,

New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

ORDER

The Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of this

Court, 953 F.3d 1134, and remanded this case to us for

further consideration in light of Department of Homeland

Security v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020), see

Immigr. & Customs Enf’t v. Padilla, 141 S. Ct. 1041,

1041–42 (2021).

Therefore, we remand this case to the district court with

instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and for 

further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s

decisions in Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022), Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), and Department

of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959

(2020). This order shall constitute the mandate of the Court.