Genesis GSA Strategic One, LLC v. Howard County

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GENESIS GSA STRATEGIC ONE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00915-ABA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Court has previously laid out the relevant facts of this case, as well as the
procedural history that led to it granting Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
ECF No. 69 at 4–21, and assumes the parties’ familiarity with them. In summary, this
case arises from a 2022 decision by the federal government to replace certain facilities
used by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) for immigration enforcement
work in Maryland. The contractor for the project is Plaintiff Genesis GSA Strategic One,
LLC (“Genesis”), which in turn agreed to purchase and renovate a building in Elkridge,
Maryland in Howard County and lease it to the federal government. In February and
August 2025, Howard County issued Genesis commercial alteration permits. On
February 2, 2026, when construction was nearly complete, Howard County revoked
those permits.
Genesis filed this case on March 4, 2026, ECF No. 1, and filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction on March 13, ECF No. 16. After subsequent briefing and
hearings, the details of which this Court has previously discussed, see ECF No. 69 at 17–
21, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and entered a preliminary injunction vacating
Howard County’s revocation of Plaintiff’s permits, reinstating the permits, and
Case 1:26-cv-00915-ABA Document 81 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
enjoining Defendants from enforcing Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 1-102(b) against
Plaintiff with respect to the Elkridge property. ECF Nos. 70, 71. On August 24,
Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction (ECF No. 74) and filed
a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending that appeal (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff
filed a response (ECF No. 79), and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 80).
Defendants urge the Court to stay its injunction pursuant to the four factors
discussed in Nken v. Holder:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant
will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance
of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested
in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). Those factors are parallel and inverse to the factors the Court
weighed in granting the preliminary injunction:
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish
that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
(3) the balance of equities tip in its favor; and (4) an injunction
is in the public interest.
ECF No. 69 at 24 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008);
League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 236 (4th Cir.
2014). Although the standard is more demanding when, as here, the preliminary
injunction is mandatory, Genesis has shown an entitlement to that relief based on the
factors. For the same reasons Genesis is entitled to a preliminary injunction, Defendants
are not entitled to a stay.
Moreover, the arguments Defendants raise in their motion are, for the most part,
the same as those they raised in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
Case 1:26-cv-00915-ABA Document 81 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
injunction. Defendants raise one partially new argument, namely that the “injunction is
in tension with the anti-commandeering principle.” ECF No. 75-1 at 8. Defendants argue
that if the Court orders them “to issue permits on terms different than those enacted
under state law” it would “commandeer those local officials and require them to serve
the federal government and to ignore their state law limitations.” Id. at 8–9.
The Court partially addressed this argument in its prior opinion. See ECF No. 69
at 45 n.12 (quoting United States v. New York, 810 F. Supp. 3d 329, 355–56 (N.D.N.Y.
2025)) (explaining that the Supremacy Clause discrimination claim here is not an
attempt at “an end-run around the Tenth Amendment” because “this case does not
involve a request by the federal government for the State of Maryland to ‘assist with
federal immigration efforts’”). The anti-commandeering principle prohibits the federal
government from “conscripting the State’s officers directly” to “administer or enforce a
federal regulatory program.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997). It does
not authorize a state to violate the Supremacy Clause, through discrimination or
otherwise. “[T]he Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary
positions of state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus
presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply.” New York v. United
States, 505 U.S. 144, 179 (1992). Here, it is the State and Howard County that have
imposed an unconstitutional barrier to the exercise of federal authority. Requiring them
to take down that barrier is not the same as conscripting state authorities to administer
or enforce a federal program. Therefore, the anti-commandeering principle does not
apply.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary
injunction pending appeal (ECF No. 75) is DENIED.
Case 1:26-cv-00915-ABA Document 81 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Dated: October 13, 2026 	/s/
Adam B. Abelson
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00915-ABA Document 81 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4