State of Texas et al v. Joseph R Biden et al
Filing
116
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 107 MOTION to Enforce Permanent Injunction and for Expedited Discovery re 95 Judgment -- Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED in part as to the request for additional discovery and DENIED in all other respects. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS.) (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 11/18/2021) (awc) (Main Document 116 replaced with word-searchable PDF on 11/18/2021) (awc).
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 1 of 10 PageID 3416
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
[ NOV 18 2021 ]
CLERK, U.S. D!STR!CT COURT
THE STA TE OF TEXAS,
THE STATE OF MISSOURI,
Plaintiffs,
V.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ByT.tJ""7,kt::·p:::;111_ - - ::,.
2:21-CV-067-Z
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction and for Expedited
Discovery (ECF No. I 07) ("Motion"). The Court has considered all responses, replies, objections,
and sur-replies (as applicable) to the Motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is
GRANTED in part as to the request for additional discovery and DENIED in all other respects.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff States Missouri and Texas filed a complaint with this Court
against federal Defendants. 1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs asked the Court for relief including an injunction
to prevent Defendants from suspending or terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols ("MPP").
ECF No. 1 at 39. This case's short but complicated procedural history is detailed in the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order filed August 13, 2021, in which the Court granted injunctive
relief. ECF No. 94. Specifically -
1
among other requirements - the Court ordered Defendants to
Defendants are the United States of America; President Biden in his official capacity; the Department of Homeland
Security ("DHS") and OHS Secretary Mayorkas in his official capacity; the United States Customs and Border
Protection ("CBP") and Acting Commissioner of CBP Troy Miller in his official capacity; the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and Acting ICE Director Tae Johnson; and the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") and Acting CIS Director Tracy Renaud in her official capacity.
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 2 of 10 PageID 3417
(1) enforce and implement MPP in good faith and (2) to file with the Court monthly reports
including specific relevant data. ECF No. 94 at 52-53. On September 15, 2021, Defendants filed
a Notice of Compliance with Injunction ("August Compliance Notice") (ECF No. 105) and a
Monthly Report Pursuant to Court's Injunction ("August Report") (ECF No. 106).
Plaintiffs filed the present Motion on September 23, 2021, alleging that Defendants are not
enforcing and implementing MPP in good faith. ECF No. 107 at 1. Plaintiffs ask the Court to (1)
find that Defendants are not in compliance with the August 13 Order, (2) to command concrete
steps to comply, and (3) to allow Plaintiffs expedited discovery relating to compliance and
specifically related to Haitian migrant activity. ECF No. 107 at 10. Defendants filed a Response
in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion on October 14, 2021, claiming that "the government is
implementing the injunction in good faith" and that Plaintiffs "offer no valid basis for their request
for other broad-ranging discovery." 2 ECF No. 110 at 1. The following day, Defendants filed
documents reporting increased actions and new data from the month of September -
the First
Supplemental Notice of Compliance with Injunction ("September Compliance Notice") (ECF No.
111) and the Monthly Report for September 2021 ("September Report") (ECF No. 112).
Subsequently, on October 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce
Permanent Injunction and for Expedited Discovery (ECF No. 113). Plaintiffs are concerned about
an influx of Haitian migrants and the fact that Defendants are not re-implementing MPP in the
same manner as it was initially implemented. See ECF No. 113. Defendants filed the Second
Supplemental Notice of Compliance with Injunction ("October Compliance Notice") (ECF No.
114) and the Monthly Report for October 2021 ("October Report") (ECF No. 115) on November
15, 2021. These reports reflect that Defendants will fully re-implement MPP in the near future.
Defendants' Response was filed by all the listed Defendant parties except the United States Customs and Border
Protection.
2
2
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 3 of 10 PageID 3418
LEGAL STANDARDS
Courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil
contempt. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). In enforcing compliance, courts
should use "(t)he least possible power adequate to the end proposed." Spallone v. United States,
493 U.S . 265,276 (1990) (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204,231 (1821)). Plaintiffs have
the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that a court order was in effect; (2)
that the order required certain conduct by Defendants; and (3) that Defendants failed to comply
with the court's order. Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enters., Inc., 826 F.2d 392,401 (5th Cir.
1986) (citing McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949)). The evidence must
be "so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear
conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts." Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v.
Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 582 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird 's
Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 383 (5th Cir. 1999)). If Plaintiffs show a prima facie case, Defendants can
defend against it by showing a present inability to comply with the subpoena or order. Petroleos
Mexicanos, 826 F.2d at 401 (citing United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983)).
ANALYSIS
Defendants are talcing steps toward re-implementing MPP. Since the time that Plaintiffs
filed the Motion, Defendants have filed additional reports showing increased action and an
estimated timeframe on re-implementation. See ECF Nos. 111, 114. The Court finds that Plaintiffs
have not met the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are not in
compliance with the injunction. However, the Court finds good reason to modify the injunction to
allow limited discovery to ensure continued compliance with the injunction.
3
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 4 of 10 PageID 3419
A. Plaintiffs fail to show clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are failing to
comply with the Court's order.
The Court's injunction requires Defendants to "enforce and implement MPP in goodfaith."
ECF No. 94 at 52. Plaintiffs argue that the current administration's implementation of MPP
deviates from the previous administration's initial implementation. The essence of Plaintiffs'
argument is that good-faith implementation requires not only the same pace of progress, but also
the same manner of implementation as the previous administration. This is not the correct standard.
If Defendants failed to show any movement and instead argued that progress was
impossible, Plaintiffs' arguments detailing a possible path forward would be relevant -
and
potentially compelling. However, Defendants have highlighted actions the Government has taken
in compliance with the injunction. Moreover, Defendants can achieve good-faith implementation
without duplicating the previous administration's implementation. Thus, Plaintiffs fail to show
clear and convincing evidence that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court's order.
1. Defendants show action and progress in implementing MPP.
Defendants' August Compliance Notice shows Defendants took initial administrative steps
towards implementing MPP. See ECF No. 105. Specifically, Defendants (1) began negotiations
with the Mexican government, (2) identified funds for building structures in Laredo and
Brownsville for hearings, (3) set up a task force that began reviewing policies, and (4) initiated
discussions to make space on immigration court dockets. ECF No. 105 at 1, 3. While these steps
do not constitute concrete and visible implementation of MPP, the Court finds they are relevant
foundational steps toward implementation.
During September, Defendants showed increased action and "substantial progress toward
re-implementation of MPP." ECF No. 111 at 1. Defendants identified specific concerns held by
the Mexican government and stated that Defendants were finalizing plans to mitigate those
4
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 5 of 10 PageID 3420
concerns. ECF No. 110-1, ,r,r 8-13; ECF No. 111 at 1-2. Defendants also reported that they were
no longer waiting for Mexico's agreement before taking additional steps. ECF No. 111 at 3.
Accordingly, Defendants issued task orders to rebuild necessary hearing facilities in Laredo and
Brownsville. ECF No. 110 at 9.
Defendants' October Compliance Notice states that Defendants are "largely finished" with
"internal planning" and are ready to re-implement MPP "shortly after" the Mexican government
agrees to accept the return of individuals enrolled in the program. ECF No. 114-1 at 3. Defendants
further report only "one set of outstanding issues that must be resolved before Mexico will be in a
position to make the independent decision to accept into Mexico those enrolled in MPP." Id.
Defendants "anticipate that the remaining issues will be resolved shortly and that reimplementation will begin within the coming weeks." Id.
The Court takes seriously its responsibility to "protect the sanctity of its decrees and the
legal process." Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 582 (5th Cir. 2005). However, the Court finds that
Defendants' actions toward re-implementation of MPP are sufficient to negate Plaintiffs' current
allegations of bad-faith failure to comply. As a result, the Court need not determine what actions
would still be required of Defendants if the Mexico negotiations were to stalemate or if the
Mexican government were to permanently withhold consent.
2. Good-faith implementation does not require Defendants to implement MP P in the same
manner as the previous implementation.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants fail to follow the same blueprint that the previous
administration followed in implementing MPP. This claim may be true. However, this is not
controlling to the Court's analysis. The standard does not require the Court to determine whether
Defendants are implementing MPP in the most expeditious or prudent manner possible, or in the
same manner as the previous administration, or in the manner Plaintiffs would have chosen.
5
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 6 of 10 PageID 3421
Rather, the Court must simply determine whether Plaintiffs have shown by clear and convincing
evidence that Defendants are not in compliance with the injunction.
Plaintiffs are incorrect that "good-faith implementation of this Court's injunction requires
proceeding at least as quickly as Defendants did the first time they implemented MPP." ECF No.
107 at 5. The two cases Plaintiffs cite as authority for this proposition are distinguishable from
present circumstances, and neither provides controlling authority. One merely states that the
district court did not err by instructing the jury to consider past dealings between the two parties
-
among other factors -
in evaluating good-faith motive behind a sale. United Mine Workers of
Am. V. Rag Am. Coal Co., 392 F.3d 1233, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2004). The other affirms that the
district court did not clearly err when it considered previous business practice as only one factor
in evaluating good-faith intent and when the party in question was sitting in complete inaction. In
re Montgomery, 518 F.2d 1174, 1175 (4th Cir. 1975).
Even if the Court considers previous implementation ofMPP in comparison to Defendants'
present efforts, other factors offset a need to follow suit. First, the COVID-19 pandemic poses a
continuing and ever evolving challenge to both business transactions and daily life for most of the
nation. It is reasonable that the pandemic would alter best practices for implementing MPP,
including in the manner that the CDC's Title 42 order affects operations. ECF No. 110 at 10.
Second, the Mexican government expressed that it would not agree to implementation
unless certain aspects of the program are changed. ECF No. 111 at 2. This requires Defendants to
alter implementation procedures. Notably, Mexico requires shorter lag times between enrolling
aliens in MPP and concluding proceedings, lessening Defendants' ability to count on lag time to
finish building, organizing, and planning. ECF No. 110-1, ~ 9.
6
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 7 of 10 PageID 3422
The Court finds that none of Plaintiffs' specific claims of Defendants' bad-faith failure are
clear and convincing. Specifically, Plaintiffs present that Defendants are wrongly delaying reimplementation based on COVID-19 issues, lack of agreement from Mexico, and incomplete
facilities. Plaintiffs insist that MPP should be re-implemented in a phased manner, without waiting
for the entire border to be ready.
However, Defendants report that they expect an agreement with Mexico soon but are no
longer waiting for such agreement before taking concrete action and rebuilding facilities. It is
reasonable for Defendants to experience some delays and variances from the effects of the COVID19 pandemic. Moreover, Defendants claim that they expect to re-implement MPP within a few
weeks. Given these current reports, none of Plaintiffs' claims clearly and convincingly show lack
of good-faith re-implementation.
Plaintiffs fail to show controlling authority that Defendants must implement MPP in the
same manner as initially. The Court finds that Defendants' current deviation from the original
method and manner of implementation does not constitute bad-faith failure to re-implement MPP.
B. Plaintiffs are entitled to limited discovery to ensure Defendants' compliance with
the injunction.
Plaintiffs request expedited discovery through depositions and additional monthly
reporting. These requests are limited and directly relevant to the injunction's objectives.
First, Plaintiffs request to depose four lower-level agency officials on a limited basis related
to facts articulated in the August Compliance Report. ECF No. 107 at 9; ECF No. 113 at 7 n.7.
These officials have already testified by declaration in this matter. See ECF Nos. 105-1 and 110-1
(Nunez-Neto), 98-1 (Shahoulian), 98-2 (Weiss), and 98-3 Zuniga). Plaintiffs want to probe
possible discrepancies between Defendants' representations of compliance and facts in the
7
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 8 of 10 PageID 3423
officials' declarations. ECF No. 113 at 8. Plaintiffs seek this information to ascertain more fully
Defendants' compliance with the injunction.
Although the Court has not found clear and convincing evidence of Defendants'
noncompliance, Plaintiffs have provided some evidence that Defendants are not re-implementing
MPP as quickly or as thoroughly as they should. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiffs' request
reasonable -
considering the ongoing importance of compliance and the limited nature of the
request.
Defendants cannot assert privilege or status to avoid depositions of lower-level officials
limited to explaining decisions and actions taken to implement those decisions. The deliberative
process privilege protects only "predecisional information" about the deliberative process by
which an agency reached a policy decision. Skelton v. US. Postal Serv., 678 F.2d 35, 38 (5th Cir.
1982). It does not protect information explaining a decision, and it certainly does not protect factual
information. Id.; Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1981).
Additionally, in contrast to probing the mental processes of a federal Executive Department
Secretary, which may require a higher standard, Plaintiffs request limited depositions to gain facts
from officials who work - or formerly worked - several levels below agency heads. See United
States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409,422 (1941). The status of these officials does not foreclose such
narrow questioning.
Second, Plaintiffs request information related to the monthly reporting that the injunction
already requires. See ECF No. 107. Plaintiffs request data for the time period before the injunction,
beginning January 21, 2021. Id. Plaintiffs also request this information broken down to show data
related to Haitian migrants. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs request data related to Defendants' violation of
parole limits, pointing to the Court's findings on this subject. Id.
8
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 9 of 10 PageID 3424
The Court finds Plaintiffs' request for information reasonable and in good faith. Plaintiffs
require prior data to confirm whether Defendants' current actions and results represent a change
from the time period before the injunction. The injunction addresses parole practices, but
additional information is necessary to clarify Defendants' compliance with legal limits on parole
decision-making. While Haitian migrants are not subject to MPP, data on Haitian migrants is
relevant to the injunction's objectives and of increased importance given the humanitarian crisis
Plaintiffs describe. ECF No. 107 at 2.
The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of construction,
modification, and enforcement of the permanent injunction. Accordingly, the Court finds
Plaintiffs' Motion seeking limited discovery should be GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce
Permanent Injunction and for Expedited Discovery is GRANTED in part as follows:
(a) Plaintiffs may conduct limited depositions - relating to the facts in the Defendants'
filed notices and reports to obtain an explanation of Defendants' actions or lack thereof
related to the injunction - of the following officials: (1) Acting Assistant Secretary
Blas Nufiez-Neto; (2) former Assistant Secretary David Shahoulian; (3) Principal
Deputy Chief Immigration Judge Daniel H. Weiss; and (4) Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary Ricardo Zuniga;
(b) Defendants must file with the Court on or before December 15, 2021 a report showing
the five categories of information required by the injunction broken down monthly
beginning January 21, 2021 ;
(c) Defendants' reports filed with the Court in compliance with the injunction, including
the report required by subsection (b ), must include - as a part of categories (5) and (6)
- the number of applicants paroled or released into the United States based on .DHS' s
lack of detention capacity; and
(d) Defendants' reports filed with the Court in compliance with the injunction, including
the report required by subsection (b), must show data on Haitian migrants in all
categories.
The Court finds all other relief should be and is hereby DENIED.
9
Case 2:21-cv-00067-Z Document 116 Filed 11/18/21
Page 10 of 10 PageID 3425
SO ORDERED.
November
16, 2021.
SMARYK
!STRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?