Introduction

The case of Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al. (#20-1775) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, addresses critical issues pertaining to administrative law and the procedural mechanisms surrounding judicial intervention in federal regulations. The petitioners, comprising 13 state attorneys general supporting the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) 2019 Public Charge Rule, sought to intervene in litigation challenging the rule's legality. The respondents, including the City and County of San Francisco and various federal entities, contested the petitioners' bid to defend the regulation. The primary legal battleground centers on whether the petitioners should have been allowed to intervene in the ongoing litigation after the DHS's procedural maneuvers to reverse the Public Charge Rule's enforcement without adhering to standard administrative procedures.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court issued a Per Curiam decision dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. This dismissal indicates that the Court recognized procedural or jurisdictional issues significant enough to withdraw its initial intent to review the case. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, authored a concurring opinion that delves into the complexities surrounding the intervention of the petitioners in the litigation defending the Public Charge Rule. The Court highlighted the DHS's reversal of its stance on the rule following a change in administration and its subsequent use of a consent judgment to repeal the rule without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice-and-comment requirements. This maneuver effectively precluded the petitioners from intervening to defend the rule, raising substantial administrative law questions that the Court deemed beyond the scope of the immediate certiorari.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several precedents that illuminate the Court's considerations in administrative law and procedural compliance. Notably:

• Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. (575 U.S. 92, 2015) – This case emphasizes the necessity for agencies to follow notice-and-comment procedures when repealing regulations initially established through such processes under the APA.
• UNITED STATES v. MUNSINGWEAR, Inc. (340 U.S. 36, 1950) – This precedent addresses the scope of vacatur in APA actions, informing the Court's understanding of how final judgments can impact agency regulations.
• FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (556 U.S. 502, 2009) – This decision explores the procedural nuances of rulemaking and vacatur, relevant to the DHS's actions in this case.

These precedents collectively underscore the importance of procedural adherence in administrative rulemaking and reversal, influencing the Court’s cautious approach in addressing the certiorari.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s concurrence elucidates the intricate legal reasoning behind dismissing the certiorari. Central to this reasoning is the DHS’s strategic use of a consent judgment from a different litigation to annul the Public Charge Rule without engaging in the requisite notice-and-comment rulemaking process mandated by the APA. The Court recognizes this as an unconventional tactic, labeled "rulemaking-by-collective-acquiescence," which circumvents established administrative procedures. By doing so, the Government effectively avoids the transparency and stakeholder engagement that is fundamental to regulatory changes. This procedural sidestep raised significant administrative law concerns, particularly regarding the legitimacy and authority of the repeal. Consequently, the Court prioritized addressing these procedural complexities over the substantive merits of the Public Charge Rule, leading to the dismissal of the certiorari as improvidently granted.

Impact

The dismissal of the writ has profound implications for future administrative actions and judicial interventions. It highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing not just the substance of federal regulations but also the procedural integrity behind their enactment and repeal. Specifically, the case sets a precedent that agencies must adhere to established administrative procedures, such as the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, even when reversing policy positions. Additionally, the decision underscores the limitations on third parties, like state attorneys general, in intervening in federal regulatory disputes, especially when procedural irregularities are present. This ruling may prompt more rigorous judicial oversight of administrative actions, ensuring that agencies cannot bypass procedural safeguards to implement or repeal regulations unilaterally.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Certiorari

A legal mechanism through which a higher court, like the Supreme Court, reviews the decision of a lower court. Dismissing a writ as "improvidently granted" means the higher court decides not to take up the case after initially agreeing to review it.

Public Charge Rule

An immigration regulation that determines whether an individual seeking admission or adjustment to permanent residency in the U.S. is likely to become dependent on government assistance, thereby becoming ineligible.

Notice-and-Comment Procedure

A mandatory process under the APA where federal agencies must publish proposed regulations and solicit public feedback before finalizing them. This ensures transparency and public participation in regulatory development.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

A U.S. federal statute that governs the way administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations. It includes requirements for publishing notices of proposed and final rulemaking, opportunities for public comment, and standards for judicial review.

Rulemaking-by-Collective-Acquiescence

A term used to describe a scenario where an agency effectively changes or repeals a regulation without following proper procedural steps, relying instead on the collective acceptance or silence of stakeholders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the writ of certiorari in Arizona v. San Francisco underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity in administrative law. By refusing to entertain the petitioners' intervention based on the DHS's procedural maneuvers, the Court reinforces the necessity for federal agencies to adhere strictly to established rulemaking processes. This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for governmental bodies, emphasizing that bypassing procedural requirements can lead to significant judicial pushback and limit the ability to unilaterally modify or repeal regulations. Moreover, the case highlights the delicate balance between administrative flexibility and procedural fidelity, shaping the contours of future administrative and judicial interactions.