Opinion ID: 4511503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceedings Before the Motions Panel

Text: The district court issued its preliminary injunction on April 8, 2019. The Government filed an appeal on April 10 and the next day requested an emergency stay pending appeal. In accordance with our regular procedures, our April motions panel heard the Government’s request for an emergency stay. The motions panel held oral argument on the stay on April 24. In three written opinions, the panel INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 17 unanimously granted the emergency stay on May 7. Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2019). In a per curiam opinion, the motions panel disagreed, by a vote of two to one, with the district court’s holding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their statutory argument that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Id. at 508–09. The panel majority stated its legal conclusion in tentative terms, writing that it was “doubtful that subsection (b)(1) [of § 1225] ‘applies’ to [plaintiffs.]” Id. at 509 (emphasis added).