Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Immigration Motion for Stay

Immigration Motion for Stay

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,255 |Likes:
Motion to stay immigration ruling
Motion to stay immigration ruling

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: The Huntsville Times on Sep 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMANORTHEASTERN DIVISION
HISPANIC INTEREST COALITIONOF ALABAMA,
et al.
,Plaintiffs,v.ROBERT BENTLEY, in his official capacity asGovernor of the State of Alabama,
et al.
,Defendants.))))))))))))Case Number:5:11-cv-02484-SLB
 EMERGENCY MOTIONTO ENJOIN PORTIONS OF HB 56 PENDING APPEALAND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Plaintiffs petition this Court to enjoin sections 10, 12, 27, 28, and 30 of HB56, pending appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 8(a).Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction of these sections so that amotion for an injunction pending appeal can be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Because Plaintiffs present a substantial case onthe merits and the equities favor them, the Court should preserve the status quo andenjoin Sections 10, 12, 27, 28, and 30 pending appeal.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctionseeking to enjoin all of HB 56, including sections 10, 12, 27, 28, and 30, on
FILED
2011 Sep-29 PM 12:20U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 5:11-cv-02484-SLB Document 140 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 20
 
 
2constitutional and federal statutory grounds. (Doc. 37.) On August 1, 2011, theUnited States also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoinnumerous sections of HB 56. (
See
Doc. 2 of Case No. 11-2746.) Religious leadersalso filed suit challenging sections 13 and 27. (
See
Doc. 1 of Case No. 11-2736.)On August 3, 2011, these cases were consolidated, (Doc. 59), and the Court held ahearing on August 24, 2011. On August 29, 2011, the Court temporarily enjoinedHB 56 pending its ruling on the motions for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 126.)On September 1, 2011, the three cases were unconsolidated. (Doc. 128.) TheCourt issued rulings on the three motions for preliminary injunction on September28, 2011. (
See
Docs. 137 & 138 of Case No. 11-2484; Docs. 93 & 94 of Case No.11-2746; and Docs. 83 & 84 of Case No. 11-2736.)The Court preliminarily enjoined Sections 11(a), 13, 16, and 17 of HB 56 onpreemption grounds in the case brought by the United States.
See
DOJ Order(Doc. 94 of 11-2746). The Court also preliminarily enjoined Sections 8, 11(f) and(g), and the last sentences of 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h) on constitutional grounds inthis case.
See
Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA) Order (Doc. 138 of 11-2484). However, the Court permitted the other sections of HB 56 to go intoeffect. It ruled that Sections 10, 12, 27, and 30 were not preempted by federal law.HICA Order at 48 (§ 10), 70-78 (§ 12), 90-93 (§ 27), 102-106 (§ 30). RegardingSection 28, it declined to address the merits of the claim, concluding that Plaintiffs
Case 5:11-cv-02484-SLB Document 140 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 20
 
 
3lacked standing to challenge the provision. HICA Order at 93-101. The Court alsoheld that the HICA Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge HB 56 in its entirety.
1
 
ARGUMENTI.
 
LEGAL STANDARD
Although this Court found that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the traditionalpreliminary injunction standard regarding their challenges to Sections 10, 12, 27,28, and 30, enjoining those provisions pending appeal is appropriate in order tomaintain the status quo.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) (authorizing grant of injunctionto protect party appealing denial of injunctive relief); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) (partyseeking injunction pending appeal must seek this from district court unlessimpracticable);
Coastal Corp. v. Texas Eastern Corp.
, 869 F.2d 817, 820 (5th Cir.1989) (explaining that Rule 62(c) authorizes injunction while appeal is pending, if done to maintain status quo). To warrant an injunction pending appeal, the movantmust generally satisfy the traditional preliminary injunction requirements.
See Inre Grand Jury Proceedings
, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). However,where the “balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the[injunction],” the movant need only show a “substantial case on the merits,” ratherthan a “‘probability’ of success on the merits.”
 Ruiz v. Estelle
, 650 F.2d 555, 565
1
In the event that the Court’s determination that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge HB 56 inits entirety was considered legal error, the Court concluded that HB 56 is not an unconstitutionalregulation of immigration.
Case 5:11-cv-02484-SLB Document 140 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 20

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->