Case Name: Rochelle GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellee v. Eric D. HARGAN, Acting Secretary, Health and Human Services, et al., Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 874 F.3d 735
Docket Number: No. 17-5236
Parties: Rochelle GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellee v. Eric D. HARGAN, Acting Secretary, Health and Human Services, et al., Appellants
Judges: Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge; HENDERSON , ROGERS, TATEL, GRIFFITH , KAVANAUGH**, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT , PILLARD , and WILKINS, Circuit Judges
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 874
Pages: 735–757

Head Matter:
Rochelle GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellee v. Eric D. HARGAN, Acting Secretary, Health and Human Services, et al., Appellants
No. 17-5236
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed on: October 24, 2017
Brigitte Amiri, Senior Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Arthur B. Spitzer, Daniel Mach, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, Washington, DC, for Appellee Rochelle Garza.
Catherine H. Dorsey, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Office of the Attorney General, Alexander Haas, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Benjamin M. Shultz, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil- Division, Appellate Staff, Washington,' DC, for Appellants Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary, Health and Human Services, Stephen Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, and Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Scott Allen Keller, Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, Austin, TX, for State of Arkansas, State of Louisiana, State of Michigan, State of Nebraska, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of South .Carolina, State of Texas, Amici Curiae for Appellant.
Joshua David Hawley, Office' of the Attorney General, State of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, Scott Allen Keller, Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, Austin, TX, fbr State of Missouri, Amicus Curiae for Appellant.
Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, State of New York Division of Appeals & Opinions, New York, NY, for State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Pennsylvania, State of Massachusetts, State of Oregon, State of California, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Maine, State of Vermont, State of Washington, Amici Curiae for Appellant.
Karl A. Racine, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for District of Columbia, Amicus Curiae for Appellant.
Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge; HENDERSON , ROGERS, TATEL, GRIFFITH , KAVANAUGH**, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT , PILLARD , and WILKINS, Circuit Judges
A statement by Circuit Judge Henderson, dissenting from the disposition of thfe case, is attached to this order.
A statement by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh, joined by Circuit Judges Henderson and Griffith, dissenting from the disposition of the case, is attached to this order,
A statement by Circuit Judge Millett, concurring in the disposition of the case, is attached to this order.
cirCuit judge Pillard did not participate in this matter.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Upon consideration of appellee's petition for rehearing en banc and the supplements thereto, the response to the petition and the supplement to the response, the cor rected brief for amici curiae States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington-; and the District of Columbia in support of appellee's petition, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of the judges eligible to participate; and appellee's motion to recall the mandate and petition for en banc consideration of appellee's motion to recall the mandate, it is
ORDERED that the mandate be recalled. The Clerk of the district court is directed to return forthwith the mandate issued October 20, 2017. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellee's petition for rehearing en banc be granted. This case has been considered by the court sitting en banc without oral argument, no judge having requested oral argument. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the order filed October 20, 2017 be vacated, except that the. administrative stay remains dissolved. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellants' emergency motion for stay pending appeal be denied because appellants have not met the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal, see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), substantially for the reasons set forth in the October 20, 2017 dissenting statement of Circuit Judge Mil-lett. The case is hereby remanded to the district court for further proceedings to amend the effective dates in paragraph 1 of its injunction. The dates in paragraph 1 have now passed, and the parties have proffered new evidence and factual assertions concerning the expected duration of custody and other matters. The district court is best suited to promptly determine in the first instance the appropriate dates for compliance with the injunction. In so doing, the district court retains full discretion to conduct proceedings and make any factual findings deemed necessary and appropriate to the district court's exercise of its equitable judgment, consistent with this order, including with regard to any of the factual disputes that were raised for the first time on appeal. See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320, 330-31, 126 S.Ct. 961, 163 L.Ed.2d 812 (2006); Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 305 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
. As both parties agree, the court has jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's temporary restraining order was more akin to preliminary injunctive relief and is therefore appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86 n.58, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974).