US judge criticizes attorneys’ national injunction request

OAKLAND -- The federal judge considering whether to temporarily block the Trump administration's so-called public charge rule, which seeks to stop immigrants from using public benefits if they are not permanent residents, indicated Tuesday she is unlikely to halt the policy nationwide, refusing to impose "relief broader than necessary."

With an eye toward potential appellate reversal, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton admonished attorneys representing dozens of states, counties and advocacy groups in opposition to the rule change for failing to support why a universal injunction is necessary opposed to a more specifically tailored remedy.

The judge said she "found briefing to be entirely insufficient," given it ignored recent guidance from higher courts she said detailed the need for "uniformity of immigration policy." She did not rule on the matter and took it under submission.

The legal challenge concerns a policy announced by President Donald J. Trump on Aug. 12 requiring immigration officials to consider whether applicants seeking permanent residency or visa extensions are a "public charge," based on whether they receive, or are likely to receive, government aid.

The rule will redefine the label to include people who use a wider array of public services, such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing aid. It will take effect Oct. 15.

Hamilton said she was "at a loss" over why plaintiffs' attorneys did not address the issue of nationwide injunctions in immigration cases when they know it is "at the forefront of this kind of litigation."

In July, an Oakland federal judge halted nationwide a new immigration policy barring almost all asylum applications at the Mexican border. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later restricted the judge's injunction to California and Arizona -- two of the nine states in which it has jurisdiction. The appellate court reasoned nationwide injunctions should be limited to "exceptional cases" because such rulings threaten to "stymie novel legal challenges and robust debate arising in different judicial districts."

The president has maintained the courts are improperly interfering with his authority to establish uniform policy.. City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 19-CV04717 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 13, 2019).

Hamilton appeared to interpret the 9th Circuit decision as requiring heightened standards to issue such universal remedies.

"You have not, in my view, provided a satisfactory basis for issuing a nationwide injunction for dictating implementation of this rule in, let's say, Mississippi or Iowa," she said.

Ethan Davis, representing the Department of Justice, agreed recent immigration cases out of the 9th Circuit say, "All injunctions must be narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harms shown."

Hamilton asked for additional briefing on what a more limited injunction would look like.

Matthew Goldberg, representing San Francisco, argued there will be a "chilling effect" on legal immigrants who seek public services because of the "confusion and fear" the he said the policy will cause. If the rule is not blocked, plaintiffs will suffer from loss of Medicaid funds, increased out-of-pocket and operational costs and harm to public health and states' economies, he continued.

The lawsuit seeking to halt the policy alleged procedural violations that constitute "arbitrary and capricious" policymaking.

The Department of Justice maintained all the supposed harms are speculative or could be avoided.

Hamilton said she will rule based on "arguments today and not what's in the briefs because [they] are not satisfactory."