V. THE REMAIMNG REQUIREMENTS FOR INJUNCTFVE RELIEF
A. Immediate and Irreparable Harm. Defendants next argue that the Plaintiff States have not shown that they will be immediately and irreparably injured if the Termination Order goes into effect. To obtain injunctive relief, the Plaintiff States must establish "a significant threat of injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm."235 Evidence of "speculative injury" is not sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear on the part of the applicant."236 The Court concludes that the Plaintiff States have met this burden. The record reflects that—based on the government's own predictions—that the Termination Order will result in an increase in daily border crossings and that this increase could be as large as a three-fold increase to 18,000 daily border crossings. Moreover, the CDC's own Termination Order acknowledges that the order "will lead to an increase in a number of non-citizens being processed in DHS facilities which could result in overcrowding in congregate settings."237 The record also includes evidence supporting the Plaintiff States' position that such an increase in border crossings will increase their costs for healthcare reimbursements and education services. These costs are not recoverable. The Plaintiff States thus satisfy the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction.
B. Balance of Harms.
Defendants next argue that consideration of the "balance of harms" weighs against a preliminary injunction. Specifically, they argue that an injunction "would unduly interfere with the judgment of the Nation's chief public health expert that a Title 42 order is no longer warranted giving the public health circumstances."239 They argue that an injunction would "require the Executive Branch to adopt an extraordinarily restrictive public health order, despite the Executive Branch's considered judgment that the order is no longer warranted."
Defendants5 argument is correct to the extent that the CDC's Title 42 Orders indisputably impact the operation of the immigration system under Title 8. This argument, however, is just one side of the "balance of harms" that the Court must consider. The Plaintiff States have demonstrated harm that will result from the Termination Order and that, despite the impact of the order on the states, they were not able to protect their interest by participating in the notice-and-comment process mandated by the APA. On the other hand, the impact of the CDC's Title 42 Orders on immigration are ameliorated by certain exceptions and "safety valves" in those orders. The CDC's Title 42 Orders grant DHS discretion to except non-citizens from the impact of the orders on a case-by-case basis.241 These exceptions can be triggered by "consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian and public health interests."242 Defendants concede that these exceptions have 238 Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th at 1002 (The same costs to the plaintiffs that supported standing also constitute irreputable injury not adequately remedied by damages" because "they will be unable to recover those additional cost from the Federal Government."). been employed throughout the period that the CDC's Title 42 Orders have been in place.2 3
Considering the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction.
C. The Public Interest.
Finally., the Court concludes that injunctive relief would serve the public interest. Defendants' brief argument with respect to this element merely repeats the same arguments they make with respect to standing, reviewability, and the balance of harms. Given the impact of the Termination Order on the Plaintiff States and their showing that the CDC did not comply with the APA, the Court concludes that the public interest would be sen/ed by a preliminary injunction preventing the termination of the CDC's Title
42 Orders.
VI. SCOPE OF INJUNCTWE RELIEF
The final matter that the Court must address is the scope of injunctive relief. The Plaintiff States argue that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction that has nation-wide effect. As recognized by the court in Texas v. United States2^4 an injunction limited just to the Plaintiff States "would detract from the integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress and there is a substantially likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because [immigrants] would be free to move among states."245 The Defendants do not appear to contest the entry ofanation-wide preliminary injunction assuming that the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have satisfied all of the requirements for injunctive relief. However, in an Amicus Brief filed on behalf of two asylum applicants in Mexico, these asylum applicants argue for an injunction that is limited in scope to the territories of the twenty-four Plaintiff States.246 The Court agrees with the Plaintiff States that a nation-wide injunction is necessary for complete relief given the ability of immigrants crossing the border to move freely from one state to another.247 A preliminary injunction limited to the Plaintiff States will likely do nothing more than shift border crossings from the Plaintiff States to states not covered by the preliminary injunction. The Court also notes that the Termination Order outlines the significant operational issues posed by an order that requires DHS to resume immigration operations under Title 8.248 A piecemeal preliminary injunction would only further complicate DHS's operations. Accordingly, a nation-wide injunction would provide the Plaintiff States with complete relief as well as promoting uniformity in immigration enforcement.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have satisfied each of the requirements for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Plaintiff States' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
THUS DONE in Chambers on this J^ .day of May, 2022.
ROBERT R^UMMERHAYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE