Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco
Headline: Court dismisses review of the 2019 public‑charge immigration rule fight, leaving lower-court vacatur and repeal questions unresolved and affecting immigrants and states contesting benefit‑based exclusions.
Holding:
- Allows existing lower-court rulings against the 2019 public‑charge rule to remain in place.
- Blocks the Court from resolving whether states could intervene to defend the rule for now.
- Raises open questions about agency rule repeal and notice‑and‑comment requirements.
Summary
Background
A group of 13 States supported a Department of Homeland Security regulation from 2019 called the Public Charge Rule. The City and County of San Francisco and other parties sued, arguing the rule was unlawful because it defined "public charge" too broadly. The dispute reached appeals courts after lower courts found the rule unlawful and entered relief against the government.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court had agreed to decide whether the States should have been allowed to intervene to defend the rule in the Court of Appeals. When the rule was first challenged the Government defended it and appealed adverse lower-court rulings. After a change in administrations the Government voluntarily dismissed those appeals and later relied on a separate final judgment to repeal the rule without using notice-and-comment procedures, citing 86 Fed. Reg. 14221 (2021). Chief Justice Roberts, joined by three other Justices, explained these steps raise many unresolved administrative law questions and could prevent a straightforward decision on intervention, so he concurred in dismissing the Court’s review without reaching the merits.
Real world impact
The Court’s dismissal means it did not resolve whether the 2019 Public Charge Rule was lawful or whether the States could step in to defend it. As a result, lower-court judgments and the Government’s repeal remain controlling for now. The concurrence warned that important questions about agency repeal, nationwide vacatur, standing, and notice-and-comment procedures remain unsettled. Future litigation or new rulemaking, including a proposed rule at 87 Fed. Reg. 10571 (2022), could change outcomes.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a separate opinion explaining the procedural complexities and emphasizing that dismissing the case should not be read as deciding the legal issues. He listed issues such as standing, mootness, vacatur under Munsingwear, the scope of nationwide relief, and how the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rules apply.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?