FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Y O L A N Y P AD I L L A ; I B I S G U

Z M A N ; B L A N C A O R A N T E S ; B A L T AZ AR V A S Q U E Z , Plaintiffs-Appellees
,

v

.

I MM I G R A T I O N A N D C U S T O M S E N F O RC E M E

N T ; U.S. D E P AR

T M E N T O F H O ME L A

N D S E C UR

I T Y ; U.S. C U S T O M S A

N D B O R D E R P RO T E C T I ON ; U

N I T E D S T A T E S C I T I Z E N S H I P A N D I MM I G R

A T I O N S E R V I C E S ; T A E D. J O H

N S ON , Acting Director of ICE; A L E J A N D RO M A Y O R K A S , Secretary of DHS; C H R I S M A G N U S , Comm issioner of CBP; U R M. J AD D O U , Director of USCIS; M ARC J. M O O R E , Seattle Field Office Director, ICE; E X E C U T I V E O F F I C E F O R I MM I G R A T I O N R E V I E W ; M E R

R I C K B. G AR LA N D , Attorney General, United States Attorney General; L O WE L L C L A R K , W arden of the Northwest Detention Center in Tacom a, W ashington; C HAR

L E S I N G R

AM , W arden of the Federal Deten tion Center in SeaTac, W ashington; No. 19-35565

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00928- MJP

ORDERP AD I L LA V

. ICE

2

D A V I D S H I N N , Director; J AM E S J A N E C K A , W arden of the Adelanto Detention Facility,

Defendants-Appellants
,
and

U.S. D E P AR

T M E N T O F H E A L T H & H UM A N S E R V I C E S , FKA Departm ent of Social Services; O F F I C E O F R E F U G E E R E S E T T L E M E N T ; X A V I E R B E C E R R A , Secretary of HHS; S C O T T L L O Y D , Director of ORR; C H R I S M A G N U S , Comm issioner of CBP; E L I Z AB E T H G O D F R

E Y , Acting Director of Seattle Field Office, ICE, D efendants.

On Rem and from

the United States Suprem e Court
Filed July 29, 2022
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Sidney R. Thom as, and

Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

O rderP AD I L LA V

. ICE 3

SUMMARY *

Immigration
Following the Suprem e Court’s order vacating the judgm ent of this court, 953 F.3d 1134, and rem anding to this court for further consideration in light of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020), the p anel rem anded to the district court with instructions to

v ac a te t h e p r e l i mi n a r y i njunction and for fu r th e r consideration in light of the Suprem e Court’s de c i s ions in Biden v. Texas , 142 S. Ct

. 2528 (2022), Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez , 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), and T huraissigiam

.

C OUNSEL
Lauren C. Bingham (argued), Counsel; Sarah S. W ilson and Erez Reuveni, A ssistant Direc tors; W illiam C. Peachey, D irecto r ; B r ian B o y n to n , P rin cip al D eputy A ssistan t A tto rn ey General; Office of Im m igration Litigation, United States Departm ent of Justi c e, W ashington, D.C.; for DefendantsAppellants.

M a t t Adam s (argued), Leila K ang, and Aaron Korthu i s , Northwest Im m igrant Rights P roject, Seattle
, Washington; Trina A. Realm

uto and Kristin Macleod-Bal l, National Im m igration L itigation Alliance, Brookline, Massachusetts; Judy Rabinovitz, Michael Tan, and Anand Balakrishnan, ACLU Im m igrants’ Rights Projec t Ne w York, N ew Y ork;

* This summ ary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It h as been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.P AD I L LA V

. ICE

4

Emm a W in ger, Am erican Imm igration Council, W ashington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Alan S choenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wi l m er Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, Ne w York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, W ilm er Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, W ashington, D.C.; Jam il As l a m , W ilm er Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Am ici Cur i a e Retired Im m igration Judges and Board o f Im m igration Appeals Mem bers.

Erin K. E arl, J ulie W ilson-McNerney, and Anna Mouw Thom pson, P erkins C oie LLP, Seattle, W ashingt on, for Am ici Curiae Nati on a l Association of Crim inal Defense Lawyers, P retrial Justice Institute, and Ce n t er for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices.

Robert W

. Ferguson, Attorney General; Andre w R. W

. Hughes, Kristin Beneski, and B rendan Selby, Assistant Attorneys General; Office of the A ttorney General, S eattle, W ashington; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Sacram ento, Calif o rn ia; P h il W eiser, A ttorney General, Denver, Colorado; W illiam Tong, Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut; K ath leen J e n

n i n g s , A tto r

n ey G e n eral, W ilm in g to n , D e law are; Karl A. Racine, Attorney Gener al, W ashington, D.C.; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawaii; Kwam e Raoul, Attorney General, Chicago, I ll i n ois; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney Ge n e r al, Baltim ore, Maryland; Maura H ealey, Attorney General, Bost o n, Massachusetts; Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Lansing
, Michigan; Keith Ellison, Attor ney G eneral, St. P aul, Minnesota; Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada; Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General; Glenn J. Moram arco, Assistant At torney General; Marie Soueid, D eputy Attorney General; Office o fP AD I L LA V

. ICE 5

the Attorney G eneral, Trenton, New Jersey; Hector Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Peter F. N eronha, Attorney General, Providence, Rho de Island; Ellen F. Rosenblum
, Attorney General, Salem
, Oregon; T hom as J. Donovan Jr., Attorney General, Montpelier, Verm o nt; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Richm ond, Virginia; for Am ici Curiae W ashington, California, Colorado, Connectic u t , Delaware, District of Colum bia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Ne v a d a, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Verm ont, and V irginia.

ORDER

The Suprem e C ourt has v acated the judgm ent o f this Court, 9 53 F. 3 d 1134, and rem anded this case to us for further consideration in light of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
, 140 S. Ct. 19 59 (2020), see Immigr. & Customs Enf’t v. Padilla
, 1 4 1 S. Ct. 1041, 1041–42 (2021).

Therefore, we rem and this case to the d i s t ri c t court with instructions to vacate the prelim inary in j u n ction and for fu r t her consideration in light of the Suprem e Court’s decisions in Biden v. Texas , 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022), Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez
, 142 S

. Ct. 2057 (2022), and Department of Ho me land Security v. Thuraissigiam
, 1 4 0 S. Ct. 1959 (2020). This order shall constitute the m andate of the Court.