Summary and Conclusion
Although this Court has reservations about issuing a nationwide injunction, in this type of case such an injunction is warranted.19 As explained by Judge Howard,
Here, despite exploring any possible more narrow option, the Court cannot identify any relief short of enjoining the distribution of Section 1005’s payments and debt relief that will maintain the status quo and provide Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain any relief at all. As noted by the Supreme Court, “[o]nce a constitutional violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor the scope of the remedy to fit the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S. Ct. 2766, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (noting, in the context of a nationwide class action, “the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class.”). Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that Section 1005 is unconstitutional and, if implemented, would deprive him of his right to equal protection under the law. The implementation of Section 1005 will be swift and irreversible, meaning the only way to avoid Plaintiff’s irreparable harm is to enjoin the program. The Court can envision no other remedy that will prevent the likely violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right which absent an injunction cannot be remedied in this action.
Wynn, 2021 WL 2580678, at *17 (footnotes omitted). See also Faust at *5 (quoting City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2020) (“While universal injunctions are rare, they ‘can be necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, to protect similarly-situated nonparties, and to avoid the chaos and confusion that comes from a patchwork of injunctions.’”)) Faust also found that a nation-wide injunction was appropriate because “Defendants’ proposal to set aside funds to pay off any of Plaintiffs’ qualified loans is unworkable. If the USDA forgave Plaintiffs’ loans, it would be required to forgive every farmer’s loan, since the only criteria for loan forgiveness is the applicant’s race.”20 Id. Therefore, the only way to preserve the status quo is for the Court to issue a nationwide injunction.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED, and Defendants are hereby enjoined from implementing Section 1005. Defendants Thomas J. Vilsack, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Zach Ducheneaux, in his official capacity as Administrator, Farm Service Agency, their agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them, who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are immediately enjoined from issuing any payments, loan assistance, or debt relief pursuant to Section 1005(a)(2) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 until further orders of the Court.
The government has not opposed Plaintiff’s request that the Court waive the bond requirement. Therefore, Plaintiff will not be required to post a bond or other security
No later than fourteen (14) days from the entry of this order, the parties must confer and submit to the undersigned Judge’s ECF inbox a proposed scheduling order in word processing format. A scheduling conference will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
No comments:
Post a Comment