This case involves a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security's decision to vacate and terminate Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela. Plaintiffs, including the National TPS Alliance and individual TPS holders, sought to block the Secretary's action. The district court initially issued a postponement order, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a prior decision known as NTPSA I. However, shortly after that appellate decision was issued, the district court entered a partial summary judgment that set aside the Secretary's vacatur entirely, transforming the preliminary relief into permanent relief. The Government argued that this subsequent district court order rendered the appeal in NTPSA I moot and requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate its prior opinion under the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Munsingwear.
The panel began by assuming, without deciding, that the appeal became moot when the district court entered partial summary judgment. The court then addressed whether the Government was entitled to vacatur under United States v. Munsingwear. The court clarified that Munsingwear's established practice of vacating judgments applies when a case becomes moot while pending before the court. However, when mootness arises after a valid decision has already been rendered, the decision to vacate lies within the appellate court's discretion. The Ninth Circuit held that the circumstances here were distinguishable from Munsingwear and did not compel vacatur. The court applied three equitable considerations suggested in Redd v. Guerrero: first, whether the opinion is valuable to the legal community; second, whether letting the opinion stand would prejudice the parties; and third, whether mootness arose due to the voluntary conduct of the parties. The court found that judicial precedents are presumptively valuable and should stand unless the public interest dictates otherwise. It noted that the Government would not be prejudiced because it could have sought en banc rehearing or a petition for certiorari, which it did not immediately pursue. Furthermore, the Government's arguments were substantially the same as those raised in a subsequent decision, NTPSA III, and the Supreme Court's emergency stay order remained in place, muting any practical impact. Regarding the third factor, the court found that even if the mootness was involuntary or due to happenstance, vacatur is neither mandatory nor commonplace. Consequently, the court concluded that the public interest weighed heavily against vacatur.
The prior panel opinion in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 150 F.4th 1000, remains in effect. The denial of the motion to vacate preserves the Ninth Circuit's precedent regarding the postponement of the vacatur of Venezuela's TPS. The decision clarifies that post-decisional mootness does not automatically trigger vacatur and establishes that courts must weigh equitable factors, including the value of the precedent and the lack of prejudice to the parties, before exercising the extraordinary remedy of vacatur. The Government may still seek further review through a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download