Documents in S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al.

Court documents in the archive for this case, each with the description the archive holds and a link to the original where there is one. Documents are listed by docket entry; an attachment sits under its entry, marked with the entry number and its own number (12-3 is the third attachment to entry 12). 10 documents.

Court documents
EntryDateDocumentPagesOpen
3Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:38 PM]Filing33View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
4MOTION to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings/Order/Judgment filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Court entered filing, PDF from DE 3] [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:52 PM]Filing33View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
5ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG.  The court has received Defendants-Appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for “an immediate administrative stay” of the district court’s preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED.  An administrative stay is intended to “minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates” and lasts “no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay “does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We “defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered.” Nat’l Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district court’s amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT.  The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [Entered: 08/01/2026 05:22 PM]Filing2View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
6[FILED IN ERROR; DUPLICATIVE OF DOCKET ENTRY NO. 5]:  ORDER FILED. COLLINS, VANDYKE, and TUNG, Circuit Judges: The court has received Defendants-Appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for “an immediate administrative stay” of the district court’s preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED. An administrative stay is intended to “minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates” and lasts “no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay “does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We “defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered.” Nat’l Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district court’s amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [COURT UPDATE: noted that order is duplicative of DE 5 and resent NDA] [Entered: 08/03/2026 09:08 AM] [Edited: 08/03/2026 01:54 PM]Filing2View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
13OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/10/2026 04:41 PM]Filing60View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
16ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG The district court here granted a mandatory injunction that required the State of Oregon to “[i]mmediately end the categorical housing of transgender women in men’s [prison] facilities” and (among other things) to apply “a presumption of placement consistent with each person’s gender identity, absent a documented and articulable security justification.” Amended Order on Prelim. Inj., D.Ct. Dkt. 66, at 2. The State asks us to stay that injunction pending the State’s appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the stay.....We also grant a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal. The district court has already ordered Defendants to produce information relating to the members of the class that it certified. See D.Ct. Dkt. 69. But because Plaintiffs “are unlikely to succeed” on the merits and it is thus likely that “the provisional class was improperly granted,” Dickinson, 174 F.4th at 650, such discovery is not warranted, and we therefore stay the district court proceedings pending appeal. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 08/20/2026 02:01 PM]Filing14View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
17ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F..--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF (corrected cover page) attached as of 8/27/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 08/20/2026 03:32 PM] [Edited: 08/27/2026 08:31 AM]Filing69View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
23-1OPINION (Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION VACATED; CLASS DECERTIFIED; CASE REMANDED; MANDATE ISSUED FORTHWITH. Opinion by Judge Tung. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 09/17/2026 09:42 AM]Opinion18View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
24MANDATE ISSUED Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG.  The judgment of this Court, entered 9/17/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 09/17/2026 10:27 AM]Filing1View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external
27MOTION to Extend Time to File Petition for Rehearing filed by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F.. [Entered: 10/01/2026 02:25 PM]Filing6View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external

10 documents