In Re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2017). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
92 citation events (92 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Save the Colorado v. Semonite (cod, 2023-03-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Save the Colorado v. Semonite
D. Colo. · 2023 · confidence medium
Citing to the decree that a district court “may not compel the Government to disclose any document that the Government believes is privileged without first providing the Government with the opportunity to argue the issue,” In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443, 445 (2017), Petitioners argue that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that privileged documents are part of an AR.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Western Watersheds Project v. Feldhausen
D. Ariz. · 2021 · confidence medium
BLM argues the materials Plaintiffs “seek 15 merely reflect consideration of the evidence in the record; they are not themselves 16 evidence, and thus are not themselves considered, directly or indirectly.” (Doc. 35 at 12 17 (emphasis in original).) 18 In In re United States, the Ninth Circuit stated that it is has not directly “addressed 19 whether assertedly deliberative documents must be logged and examined or whether the 20 government may exclude them from the administrative record altogether.” In re United 21 States, 875 F.3d 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 2017), vacated on other grounds by…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Urban League v. Ross
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cal. Oct. 18, 2007) (ordering in camera review in APA case despite declaration of 19 agency official “formally asserting the [attorney-client and deliberative process] privileges and 20 explaining the bases therefor”); cf. In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443, 445 (2017) (per curiam) 21 (holding that “under the specific facts,” the district court should have reached threshold 22 arguments, considered narrower amendments to the record, and provided the Government the 23 opportunity to argue privilege). 24 Accordingly, the Court orders Defendants to file the following, and a privilege log…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Urban League v. Ross
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Furthermore, several district courts 5 have ordered production of the administrative record prior to deciding reviewability. 6 Defendants rely on In re United States, a mandamus action stemming from challenges to 7 the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. 138 S. Ct. 443 8 (2017).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
In re United States, 875 F.3d 7 1200, 1210 (9th Cir.), vacated by 138 S. Ct. 443, 445 (2017) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Uc Regents v. Usdhs
9th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443, 445 (2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump
4th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Proclamation 9645 was issued under the authority of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (f) and 1185(a)(1)), and only a cursory review of those provisions confirms that they accord the Executive broad discretion to exclude aliens. 5 Fourth, and most importantly, the APA explicitly preserves existing doctrines sounding in judicial restraint — including the principle of nonreviewability described 5 It is noteworthy that in a case challenging DHS’s plan to rescind the immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), the Supreme Court recently granted the government relief from…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump
4th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Proclamation 9645 was issued under the authority of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (f) and 1185(a)(1)), and only a cursory review of those provisions confirms that they accord the Executive broad discretion to exclude aliens. 5 Fourth, and most importantly, the APA explicitly preserves existing doctrines sounding in judicial restraint — including the principle of nonreviewability described 5 It is noteworthy that in a case challenging DHS’s plan to rescind the immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), the Supreme Court recently granted the government relief from…
cited Cited "see" Environmental Defense Fund v. Wheeler
D.D.C. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States, 583 U.S. 29, 32 (2017) (per curiam) (holding that the district court must address threshold reviewability questions before examining the administrative record).
discussed Cited "see" Bmbp v. Shane Jeffries (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 32.
discussed Cited "see" In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking (2×)
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States, 875 F.3d 23 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 2017), vacated on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2018) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Steven Bruce v. Alex Azar, II
9th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States, 875 F.3d 1200 , 1206 4 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2017).
discussed Cited "see" State of New York v. Mayorkas
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Jd.; see In re United States, 583 U.S. —, 2017 WL 6505860, at *2 (Dec. 20, 2017) (No. 17-801) (‘[T]he District Court may not compel the Government to disclose any document that the Government believes is privileged without first providing the Government with the opportunity to argue the issue.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Usdc-Ore
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 444 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or. (In re United States)
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 444 .
discussed Cited "see" Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (2×)
D. Maryland · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 443 , 445, 199 L.Ed.2d 351 (2017) (stating that the district court should have deferred ordering the production of documents for completion of the administrative record until after it had ruled on the Government's threshold arguments for dismissal).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or. (In re United States) (2×)
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 443 , 199 L.Ed.2d 351 (2017).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Usdc-Ore
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 443 (2017).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Can Softtech, Inc v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cl. at 696–97 (relying on ARKRAY, Poplar Point, and EFW); see also In re United States, 583 U.S. 29 , 31–32 (2017) (per curiam) (holding in an APA case that the lower court “may not compel the Government to [complete the record with] any document that 9 the Government believes is privileged without first providing the Government with the opportunity to argue the issue” but remanding to the district court to first consider the Government’s threshold justiciability and jurisdictional arguments); In re United States, 138 S. Ct. 371, 374 (2017) (Breyer, J., dissenting from the grant of a…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bmbp v. Shane Jeffries
9th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also In re United States, 875 F.3d 1200 , 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2017) (Watford, J., dissenting) (discussing potential circumstances justifying expansion of the AR), vacated, 138 S. Ct. 443, 445 (2017).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Oak Grove Technologies, LLC v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The district court elaborated further on the issue of “relevance”: [A]gency action is indeed judged based on the agency’s stated rationale. . . . [But that] does not mean that courts have no role in ensuring at the outset that they have been presented with the whole record. . . . [I]t is also true that deliberative documents are prone to reveal the mental processes of decisionmakers — in fact, that is a requirement to claim the record’ subject to review under the [Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)] is not merely the record designated and submitted by the agency” (quoting Por…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re UNITED STATES, Et Al.
17-801..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 20, 2017.
138 S. Ct. 443
Per Curiam.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published
[*443] PER CURIAM.

This case arises from five related lawsuits that challenge a determination adopted by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The determination, announced by the Acting Secretary, is to take immediate steps to rescind a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, by March 5, 2018. The Acting Secretary stated that her determination was based in part on the Attorney General's conclusion that DACA is unlawful and likely would be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation.

The five suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the plaintiffs in those actions are the respondents in the matter now before this Court. The defendants[*444] in the District Court, and the petitioners here, include the Government of the United States, the Acting Secretary, and the President of the United States, all referred to here as the Government.

In the District Court litigation respondents argue that the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA in the near future is unlawful because, among other reasons, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including the equal protection guarantee implicit in that Clause.

The issue to be considered here involves respondents' contention that the administrative record the Government filed to support the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA is incomplete. The record consists of 256 pages of documents, and the Government contends that it contains all of the nondeliberative material considered by the Acting Secretary in reaching her determination. (Nearly 200 pages consist of published opinions from various federal courts.)

On October 17, the District Court, on respondents' motion, ordered the Government to complete the administrative record. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Department of Homeland Security , App. C to Pet. for Mandamus, 2017 WL 4642324 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 17, 2017) (District Court Order). The details of that order are recounted further below. See infra , at 3.

The Government petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, denied the Government's petition. See 875 F.3d 1200 (2017).

On November 19, three days after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion, respondents moved the District Court to stay its order requiring completion of the administrative record until after the District Court resolved the Government's motion to dismiss and respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Motion to Stay in No. 17-cv-5211 (Nov. 19, 2017), Doc. 190. The District Court did not grant respondents' request, instead staying its order for one month.

Still objecting to the District Court's order, the Government now seeks relief in this Court. It has filed here a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court, or, in the alternative, for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

The Court now grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacates the order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remands the case.

The District Court's October 17 order requires the Government to turn over all "emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials" that fall within the following categories:

"(1) all materials actually seen or considered, however briefly, by Acting Secretary [Elaine] Duke in connection with the potential or actual decision to rescind DACA ..., (2) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with written advice or input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA, (3) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with verbal input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA, (4) all comments and questions propounded by Acting Secretary Duke to advisors or subordinates or others regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA and their responses, and (5) all materials directly or indirectly considered by former Secretary of DHS John Kelly leading to his February 2017 memorandum not to rescind[*445] DACA." District Court Order, 2017 WL 4642324 , at *8.

The Government makes serious arguments that at least portions of the District Court's order are overly broad. (The Government appears to emphasize certain materials in categories 2, 3, and 4.) Under the specific facts of this case, the District Court should have granted respondents' motion on November 19 to stay implementation of the challenged October 17 order and first resolved the Government's threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is "committed to agency discretion," 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record.

On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals shall take appropriate action so that the following steps can be taken. The District Court should proceed to rule on the Government's threshold arguments and, in doing so, may consider certifying that ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) if appropriate. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals or the District Court in the first instance may consider whether narrower amendments to the record are necessary and appropriate. In any event, the District Court may not compel the Government to disclose any document that the Government believes is privileged without first providing the Government with the opportunity to argue the issue.

This order does not suggest any view on the merits of respondents' claims or the Government's defenses, or that the District Court's rulings on the Government's motion to dismiss and respondents' motion for preliminary injunction should be delayed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.