Judge's Order in TRO Request
Judge's Order in TRO Request
Judge's Order in TRO Request
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
Yesterday afternoon, Florida filed suit against DHS Secretary Mayorkas, U.S.
Border Patrol Chief Ortiz, and the United States of America, alleging that “DHS
plans to immediately restart the en masse parole of aliens at the Southwest Border.”
summary of the plan). This morning, Florida filed an “emergency motion” (Doc. 2)
asking the Court to enter a temporary restraining order (TRO) “preventing DHS from
1
Biden admin to allow for the release of some migrants into the U.S. with no way to track
them, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-admin-plans-order-release-migrants-us-no-way-
trackrcna83704 (May 10, 2023 8:44 a.m. CDT).
Case 3:23-cv-09962-TKW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 05/11/23 Page 2 of 3
The motion for a TRO needs to be resolved sooner rather than later because
the policy challenged in the complaint allegedly will go into effect at 11:59 p.m.
eastern time tonight when the Title 42 Order expires. If the allegations in the
complaint and motion are true, then it appears that DHS is preparing to flout the
Court’s order in Florida v. United States, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2023 WL 2399883 (N.D.
Fla. Mar. 8, 2023), by implementing a new “parole” policy that, based on the DHS
Parole+ATD policy the Court vacated in Florida.2 Specifically, like the vacated
border patrol facilities and the new policy will simply require aliens released under
the policy “to check in with [ICE] and undergo removal proceedings in immigration
court” and maybe “be placed into an Alternatives to Detention program to ensure
new policy).
The motion does not meet the requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) for a
TRO without notice, and Florida is not seeking a TRO without notice because the
motion reflects that it was mailed to Defendants and emailed to the attorneys who
2
DHS appealed the Order in Florida, but it waited until May 5, 2023 (the next to last
business day of the 60-day appeal period) to do so and it did not seek a stay of the decision vacating
the Parole+ATD policy.
2
Case 3:23-cv-09962-TKW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 05/11/23 Page 3 of 3
ordered to respond by 4:00 p.m. eastern time so the Court can rule on the motion
before the Title 42 Order expires at 11:59 p.m. eastern time. That request is
reasonable under the circumstances, but to facilitate the response, the motion needs
communicating about the challenged policy—who are the same attorneys who
Florida’s emergency motion for a TRO. The response shall be e-filed through
_________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE