Opinion ID: 6498328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Arizona v. Biden

Text: That this decision departs from the Sixth Circuit’s recent opinion in Arizona v. Biden is readily explicable. In that case, the states of Arizona, Montana, and Ohio brought a nearly identical challenge to the Final Memo and DHS sought a stay of the district court’s nationwide preliminary injunction. Arizona v. Biden, 31 F.4th 469, 472 (6th Cir. 2022). The Sixth 18 We further reject DHS’s contention that the nationwide vacatur is overbroad. In the context of immigration law, broad relief is appropriate to ensure uniformity and consistency in enforcement. Furthermore, “[t]here is a substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because [criminal aliens not subject to enforcement] would be free to move among states.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 188. 31 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 32 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 Circuit ruled differently on several dispositive issues, but our differences result from two factors. Unlike the Sixth Circuit, this court has developed precedent that predetermines many of our conclusions. See Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 134. As to issues raised by DHS that are not foreclosed by circuit precedent, we disagree with our sister circuit’s legal conclusions for the reasons articulated above. Importantly, the Sixth Circuit found the factual record before it insufficient to support the states’ standing. Arizona, 31 F.4th at 481–82 (“The States do not suggest that the agency had to calculate the costs of its Guidance on States, and the States themselves have not offered any concrete evidence of the Guidance’s fiscal effects on each of them.”). This court’s appellate consideration, in contrast, has been significantly assisted by the district court’s fulsome fact-findings based on a comprehensively tried case. Facts pertinent to standing and to the administrative issues raised by DHS are not wanting in the record before us. Until there is a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court, we adhere to our precedent and the facts found by the district court.