General Talking Points

Question 1

Mootness Through Comprehensive Regulatory Changes

Answer 1

The landscape of the law and policies has fundamentally shifted, rendering the plaintiff’s claims moot. After six years of litigation, the defendants have enacted comprehensive regulatory changes that fully address all of the court’s concerns. Continuing the case would merely be an academic exercise without any practical purpose.

Question 2

Finality and Judicial Efficiency

Answer 2

The court has already adjudicated the merits of this case and provided the relief deemed necessary. Further proceedings would waste judicial resources, as all issues have been resolved either through settlement or by implementing the required policies. The principle of finality should apply here, as the plaintiff’s ongoing claims serve no additional purpose.

Question 3

Government Action as a Durable Solution

Answer 3

The government’s actions are not temporary or easily reversible but are enshrined in robust regulatory frameworks, developed through rigorous processes. This demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law that mitigates any risk of reverting to prior practices. The case has outlived its purpose, and the court should acknowledge this by granting dismissal.

Question 4

Respecting the Rulemaking Process

Answer 4

The extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking process followed by the government is akin to legislative action and is entitled to a presumption of permanence. Dismissing the case respects this process and recognizes that the plaintiff’s concerns have been adequately addressed within the appropriate legal frameworks.

Question 5

No Reasonable Expectation of Reenactment

Answer 5

The plaintiffs have not provided any credible evidence that the policies at issue will be reenacted. The government’s adoption of new regulations demonstrates a clear and sustained shift in policy. Without a reasonable expectation of reenactment, there is no basis for the case to continue.

Question 6

Closure for All Parties

Answer 6

After six years of litigation, it is time to bring this case to a close. The regulatory changes provide the necessary protections, and there is no longer a live controversy. Continuing this case would only prolong the uncertainty and prevent the parties from moving forward.

Question 7

Opening

• Collaborative
• enduring
• Landscape
• settled 3 + 2
• sweeping changes
• resolve this case
• good faith
• live case / controversy
• achieved its purpose

Answer 7

• The parties stand before the Court today after six years of collaborative efforts
  o efforts that secured meaningful and enduring improvements for children in federal care.
• Given these substantial enhancements, clearly the landscape has evolved dramatically since Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in 2018.
  o Three of their five claims are settled and dismissed,
  o the remaining two have been fully resolved through the sweeping changes brought by the Foundational Rule.
• The Court can and should resolve this case by applying the precedent set by Glazing Health,
  o which makes clear that Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their claims are not moot—
  o a burden they cannot meet, given the government’s strong presumption of good faith and the definitive actions taken to integrate the Rule into ORR’s operations.
• Thus, without a live case or controversy, the time has come for the Court to enter final judgment
  o and recognize that this litigation has achieved its intended purpose.