Case: Families for Freedom v. Chertoff

1:08-cv-04056 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: April 20, 2008

Closed Date: 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 20, 2008, Families for Freedom and the National Immigration Project filed a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act against the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs complained that the defendants had failed to promulgate regulations governing facilities in which DHS detains immigrants, despite the fact that the plaintiffs had previously petitioned them to establish such regulations. Plaintiffs alleged…

On April 20, 2008, Families for Freedom and the National Immigration Project filed a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act against the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs complained that the defendants had failed to promulgate regulations governing facilities in which DHS detains immigrants, despite the fact that the plaintiffs had previously petitioned them to establish such regulations. Plaintiffs alleged that DHS' failure to respond to the petition violated § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), requiring a reasoned and timely response to the petition and that the constructive denial of the petition was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under § 706(2) of the APA.

On June 25, 2009, the court (Judge Denny Chin) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs properly stated a claim that DHS violated the APA. Further, the court found that the defendants' delay in responding to the petition was unreasonable. Because it held that the defendants had not yet responded to plaintiffs' petition within the meaning of the APA, the court dismissed plaintiffs' constructive denial claim as moot. The court ordered the agency to decide plaintiffs' petition within 30 days and closed the case.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (8/19/2009)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4342049/parties/families-for-freedom-v-chertoff/


Judge(s)

Chin, Denny (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bober, David (New York)

Dassin, Lev L. (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Lute, Jane Holl (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Chin, Denny (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bober, David (New York)

Dassin, Lev L. (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Lute, Jane Holl (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Oct. 1, 2009 Docket

[Letter - Petition to Initiate Rule Making]

No Court

Jan. 24, 2007 Correspondence
1

Complaint

April 30, 2008 Complaint

Press Release

No Court

May 1, 2008 Press Release
29

Memorandum Decision

628 F.Supp.2d 535, 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 56092

June 25, 2009 Order/Opinion

[DHS Letter - Denial of Petition to Initiate Rule Making]

No Court

July 24, 2009 Correspondence

Resources

Title Description External URL

Rethinking Immigration Detention

Anil Kalhan

In recent years, scholars have drawn attention to the myriad ways in which the lines between criminal enforcement and immigration control have blurred in law and public discourse. This essay analyzes… July 1, 2010 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1556867

Pocketing a Pretty Penny: Sexual Victimization, Human Rights, and Private Contractors in the U.S. Immigration Detention System

Grace Trueman

Aliens held in the U.S. immigration detention system experience <br />sexual victimization from both fellow detainees and detention facility <br />employees. The extent of such abuse is unknown due t… May 1, 2011

The Third - and Likely Fourth - Death of the Refugee Protection Act: Sensible Changes to Asylum Still Required

Scott Kuhagen

Part I will provide an overview of the asylum adjudication system in the United States and relevant law, as well as a summary of the main provisions of the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. Part II wil… Jan. 1, 2012

The Third--and Likely Fourth--Death of the Refugee Protection Act: Sensible Changes to Asylum Still Required Scott Kuhagen

Scott Kuhagen

April 1, 2012

Safeguards for Mentally Disabled Respondents in Removal Proceedings

Christina P. Greer

This Note discusses the difficulties mentally disabled individuals face in the immigration system and argues for a different approach to assist respondents, government attorneys, and immigration judg… Jan. 1, 2013 https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=healthmatrix

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4342049/families-for-freedom-v-chertoff/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT against Michael Chertoff. (Filing Fee &#036; 350.00, Receipt Number 649428)Document filed by Families for Freedom, National Immergration Project of the National Lawyers&#039; Guild, Rafiu Abimbola, Camal Marchabeyoglu.(jfe) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2008: # (1) complaint pt 2) (mbe).

April 30, 2008 RECAP
2

RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by National Immergration Project of the National Lawyers&#039; Guild.(jfe) (mbe).

April 30, 2008 RECAP
3

RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Families for Freedom.(jfe) (mbe).

April 30, 2008 RECAP
4

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Vincent Bober on behalf of Michael Chertoff (Bober, David)

May 22, 2008 RECAP
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. Michael Chertoff served on 5/20/2008, answer due 7/21/2008. Service was accepted by A. Charles. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Families for Freedom. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Service on Attorney General, # (2) Affidavit Service on Secretary of DHS, # (3) Affidavit Service on US Attorney)(Wishnie, Michael)

June 9, 2008 RECAP
6

NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 8/26/2008 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Denny Chin. (tve)

Aug. 11, 2008 RECAP
7

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Mike Wishnie dated 8/14/08 re: Request for an adjournment of the 8/26/08 pre-motion conference. ENDORSEMENT: Adjourned to 9/12/08 at 10:00 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Denny Chin.) (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/14/08) (db)

Aug. 14, 2008 RECAP
8

Endorsed Letter

Oct. 9, 2008 PACER
9

Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction

Oct. 15, 2008 PACER
10

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion

Oct. 15, 2008 PACER
11

Declaration in Support of Motion

Oct. 15, 2008 PACER
12

Response in Opposition to Motion

Nov. 25, 2008 PACER
13

Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Nov. 25, 2008 PACER
14

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Nov. 25, 2008 PACER
15

Endorsed Letter

Dec. 3, 2008 PACER
16

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion

Dec. 10, 2008 PACER
17

Memo Endorsement

Dec. 17, 2008 PACER
18

Memo Endorsement

Dec. 17, 2008 PACER
20

Transcript

Jan. 9, 2009 PACER
19

Endorsed Letter

Jan. 20, 2009 PACER
21

Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Report

April 3, 2009 PACER
22

Notice of Appearance

May 15, 2009 PACER
23

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
24

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
25

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
26

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
27

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
28

Remark

May 15, 2009 PACER
29

Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction

June 25, 2009 RECAP
30

Clerk's Judgment

June 26, 2009 PACER
31

Order

June 26, 2009 PACER
32

Endorsed Letter

Aug. 19, 2009 PACER
33

Endorsed Letter

Sept. 9, 2009 PACER
34

Endorsed Letter

Sept. 9, 2009 PACER
35

Endorsed Letter

Sept. 22, 2009 PACER
36

Stipulation and Order

Oct. 1, 2009 RECAP

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 20, 2008

Closing Date: 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Families for Freedom, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and two individuals who had been held in detention facilities

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2009 - 0

Issues

General:

Conditions of confinement

Immigration/Border:

Detention - conditions

Detention - criteria

Detention - procedures

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties