State of Texas v. DHS, No. 24-40571 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 24-40571 Document: 111-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 24-40571 ____________ FILED October 4, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of Iowa; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Missouri; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Tennessee; State of Wyoming; State of Idaho, Plaintiffs—Appellees, versus United States Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary for DHS; Ur Mendoza Jaddou, in her official capacity as Director of USCIS; Troy Miller, in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of CBP; Patrick J. Lechleiter, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of ICE; Office of Management and Budget; Shalanda Young, in her official capacity as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Defendants—Appellees, Oscar Silva Perez; Natalie Taylor; Salvador Doe; Justin Doe; Carmen Miranda Zayas; Ricardo Ocampo Hernandez; Jessika Ocampo Hernandez; Foday Turay; Jaxhiel Turay; Genaro Vicencio Palomino; Cindy Siqueiros Maduena; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Movants—Appellants. Case: 24-40571 Document: 111-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:24-CV-306 ______________________________ Before Smith, Clement, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The above-named appellants moved in the district court to intervene as of right or, alternatively, to intervene permissively. In a well-reasoned and comprehensive Opinion and Order, the district court denied intervention on September 3, 2024 (Docket No. 49). In this expedited appeal, this court received full briefing on the question of intervention and administratively stayed proceedings in the district court awaiting oral argument on the expedited appeal. We directed that the stay issued by the district court would remain in effect pending further order of this court. We have reviewed the extensive briefing, the record, and the applicable law. There is no reversible error or need for oral argument. The order denying intervention is AFFIRMED. The denial of intervention was without prejudice, but we also note that district court has the option, in its discretion, of allowing these putative intervenors to participate as amici curiae in any further proceedings. This court’s stay order of September 11, 2024, is VACATED. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
