9th Circuit to review immigration docket's management after Trump appointees object

By Nate Raymond

March 11 (Reuters) - The chief judge of the largest U.S. federal appeals court said it will reexamine how it manages the court's "enormous" immigration docket after several judges on the court appointed by President Donald Trump "disrupted" its policymaking process with a ruling declaring its practice of pausing deportations unlawful.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Murguia of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals detailed the court's plans to reexamine those practices on Tuesday in a concurring opinion concerning a Peruvian family who had secured a stay of a removal order for over a year thanks to the court's processes.

Those practices could affect a growing number of cases before the 9th Circuit as Trump's administration pursues an ongoing mass deportation campaign, leading to a rising number of matters in court.

She said the court's executive committee has begun to "reexamine the most efficient way to manage the court’s enormous immigration docket, including the court's stay-of-removal procedures." Any changes would go to the full 9th Circuit to consider through its policymaking processes, she said.

The review will focus on issues a three-judge panel raised in an October opinion in the Peruvian family's case about a general order the court first adopted in 2022 that governs all immigration cases before the 9th Circuit.

It provides for an automatic, temporary stay of removal when a motion seeking such a pause is first filed. The panel lifted the stay in the family's case, which they said had been secured for months based on a "threadbare (if not frivolous)" motion.

The panel U.S. Circuit Judges Ryan Nelson, Daniel Collins and Lawrence VanDyke — said the family had "abused" a "manifestly unlawful" practice in the 9th Circuit that, rather than producing brief stays, had routinely resulted in months-long halting of deportations in hundreds of cases while migrants' appeals awaited review.

As a remedy, it directed the clerk's office in all cases going forward to fast-track motions seeking stays of removal by assigning them to the next available panel to hear such emergency requests.

Murguia, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in her opinion on Tuesday said the panel's order "unilaterally disrupted the court's internal governance and policymaking structure."

She said the full court — which has a liberal majority — rectified that problem by voting in February to rehear the case and vacate the panel's opinion, sending it to an 11-member en banc panel for reconsideration.

While the 11-member panel on Tuesday lifted the temporary stay of removal the Peruvians had received, Murguia in her concurring opinion said the 9th Circuit would take on the broader issue the panel raised via its internal processes, not through a ruling.

"The issue the panel raised—whether the court’s method of handling stay motions in immigration cases is lawful—is one the court can and will address through its established internal procedures governing its administrative and policymaking responsibilities," she said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Tung, Trump's newest appointee on the court, in a separate opinion objected to the case's handling, saying it "reflects the assertion of raw power by a majority of this court rather than the reasoned decisionmaking in accordance with law that the parties expect of us and that our judicial role demands."

"Relegating this issue for 'review' by a 'committee' is to ensure its death," Tung said. "Perhaps that is the point."

The case is Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-7536.

For the petitioner: Murray Hilts of Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts

For the U.S.: Matthew Spurlock of the U.S. Department of Justice