Case: State of New York v. Trump

1:17-cv-05228 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: Sept. 6, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Sixteen states, led by the State of New York, filed this lawsuit against the federal government on September 6, 2017, in response to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum issued on September 5, ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The states argued that ending DACA violated due process and equal protection rights, and also violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The states sought to enjoin the federal government from carrying out portions of the DHS memorandum and from using information about DACA grantees gathered in their applications to enforce immigration policy. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

The complaint asserted that DACA helped its beneficiaries in several ways. First, since its inception in 2012, DACA protected approximately 800,000 young people from deportation. Second, DACA allowed individuals brought to the United States as children who met specific criteria to request deferred action for two years, subject to renewal. Indeed, the states pointed out that many of the grantees have spent most of their lives in the United States. Third, DACA allowed grantees to receive public benefits like social security, to enroll in higher education institutions, and to access other benefits like opening up a bank account and buying a car. And finally, the states noted that the federal government represented that it would not use the information obtained in the DACA application process to enforce immigration policy.

The states argued that these grantees would now lose their protections and be at risk of deportation, especially since they provided the federal government with sensitive information in their applications. In light of the DHS memorandum, the federal government planned to immediately stop accepting new DACA applications. Further, it only issued renewals for grantees whose terms expired before March 5, 2018, provided they apply for renewal by October 5, 2018. The states highlighted that in addition to the losses DACA grantees will suffer, state and local economies, as well as many higher education institutions, have come to rely on the skills and productivity of the grantees and will therefore also suffer. The states pointed out that over half of DACA grantees are of Mexican origin and thus ending DACA "is a culmination of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments...to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots." Further, the states argued that the grantees' sensitive information is at risk since President Trump took "affirmative steps to reduce the privacy protections applicable to DACA data" with a January 2017 Executive Order directing all agencies to "exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information" Meanwhile, the states pointed out that the DHS Memorandum did not provide assurance to DACA grantees or direction to USCIS and ICE that this information could not be used for the purpose of immigration policy enforcement.

Originally, the plaintiffs consisted of New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. Then Colorado joined as part of an amended complaint filed on October 4, which also claimed that the United States was equitably estopped from using or disclosing DACA beneficiaries’ personal information that it previously promised to keep confidential.

On October 6, the United States filed a partial administrative record in the related case Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, available here. The record included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception to the decision to rescind it. The Batalla Vidal plaintiffs then moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, arguing that the defendants had not produced all of the documents leading to the rescission. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that they omitted documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The judge in Batalla Vidal (also Judge Garaufis) granted the motion on October 19 and ordered the defendants to produce the full administrative record in both cases.

The defendants appealed to the Second Circuit, which granted an emergency motion for a stay of discovery and record supplementation in the district court pending consideration by the Second Circuit on October 20.

On October 27, the defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing that the rescission was an enforcement action "presumed immune from judicial review" and that, alternatively, the government provided ample explanation for the rescission.

On November 9, 2017, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that policy changes in how information provided for DACA applications could be used violated due process and equitable estoppel. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the government violated due process by failing to provide individualized notice of the rescission. In both cases, the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found, however, that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the DACA rescission. The court reserved ruling on the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied all other parts of its motion.

On December 15, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the government from rescinding DACA.

Meanwhile, a series of entities filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs: United We Dream, over 100 companies, educational justice organizations, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, law enforcement leaders, workers' organizations, legal services organizations, New York University, the Mexican government, dozens of religious organizations, immigration nonprofits, various U.S. cities and counties, and civil rights organizations.

On December 27, the Second Circuit lifted the stay on the district court's discovery orders. But the government still did not want to provide additional documents. It also wanted to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. So, two days later, the government moved to stay further supplementation of the administrative record in the district court pending its appeal on the motion to dismiss. The district court granted the government’s motion to stay on December 30. It then certified the government’s interlocutory appeal on January 8.

On February 13, 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the government likely lacked a legally sufficient basis for ending the DACA program. The court found that while the government could end DACA, the question was if they had provided legally adequate reasons for rescission. The court found that the decision to end DACA was based on an erroneous conclusion that DACA was unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that this conclusion in turn relied on the "plainly incorrect factual premise" that courts have found the "somewhat analogous" Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program to have "constitutional defects." The court also found that the purported reason for rescission was contradictory in that the government claimed DACA must end because it was unconstitutional, and yet also provided for a wind-down period in which certain DACA renewal applications would continue to be adjudicated. As a result, the court held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious and enjoined the government from ending the program on a nationwide basis pending the court's decision on the merits of the case.

The government filed notice on February 20 that it had appealed the district court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction to the Second Circuit.

On February 21, 2018, the Second Circuit again denied the defendants' request for a stay of the district court's discovery orders.

On March 29, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement for notice-and-comment, finding that the rescission memorandum was a general statement of policy exempt from the notice-and-comment requirement rather than a legislative rule. This finding led the court to further dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding Regulatory Flexibility Act violations since an RFA violation is contingent on a notice-and-comment requirement in the first place. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the government changed its information-use policy but left the door open to other challenges of that policy. The court sustained the plaintiffs' equal protection claim that the rescission was motivated by racial animus against Latinos, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged the rescission created disparate impact. Further, the court found that while the plaintiffs may not have sufficiently alleged that Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General had discriminatory intent, they did sufficiently allege that President Trump may have had such intent and that his influence on the rescission could not be ignored.

The government promptly appealed the March 29 district court order denying its motion to dismiss. The Second Circuit decided to hear the government’s appeal in tandem with the appeal of the preliminary injunction and the appeal of the district court’s November 9, 2017, decision on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and similar appeals in Batalla Vidal.

On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three consolidated DACA cases: Batalla Vidal, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, and Trump v. NAACP (see related cases).

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019, on the issues of whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA is lawful.

On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that DHS's decision to rescind DACA was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the rescission was unlawful. 140 S.Ct. 1891. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting preliminary injunction and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to dismiss.

On July 28, 2020, the Acting DHS Secretary issued a memorandum suspending DACA while DHS reviewed it.

In response, on August 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the Acting DHS Secretary lacked the authority to issue the memorandum because he had not been lawfully appointed to his position. Accordingly, the plaintiffs alleged that the government’s implementation of the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of DHS’ statutory authority, and that it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Homeland Security Act, which prohibit agency action by unlawfully serving acting officials from taking effect. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the Acting Secretary was unlawfully serving in his position, to invalidate the memorandum, and to enjoin the government from terminating, amending, or interfering with DACA.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2020. Shortly thereafter, the government filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. On November 14, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied the government’s cross-motion, finding that the Acting DHS Secretary was not lawfully serving in his position and thus that the government's implementation of the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious. 2020 WL 6695076.

The plaintiffs filed another partial motion for summary judgment on November 24, 2020. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on December 4, 2020, vacating the memorandum issued by the Acting Secretary of DHS and ordering DHS to resume processing DACA applications and to notify the public accordingly. 2020 WL 7121849. The order required DHS to accept initial DACA applications, accept advance parole applications, and grant DACA renewals for two-years. On December 7, 2020 USCIS updated their website and indicated that effective that day, USCIS would accept initial applications, extend one-year DACA renewals to two-years, and accept applications for advance parole.

	Document
1:17-cv-05228	Docket [PACER] State Of New York v. Trump	Dec. 10, 2020	Dec. 10, 2020 Docket
1 1:17-cv-05228	Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief State Of New York et al v. Trump	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 Complaint
54 1:17-cv-05228	First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	Oct. 4, 2017	Oct. 4, 2017 Complaint
71 1:17-cv-05228	Notice of Motion to Dismiss	Oct. 27, 2017	Oct. 27, 2017 Notice Letter
85 1:17-cv-05228	Memorandum & Order State Of New York v. Trump	Nov. 9, 2017	Nov. 9, 2017 Order/Opinion 295 F.Supp.3d 127
96 1:17-cv-05228	Plaintiff States' Notice of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction	Dec. 15, 2017	Dec. 15, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
120 1:17-cv-05228	Amicus Brief for We Dream in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss	Dec. 20, 2017	Dec. 20, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
133 1:17-cv-05228	Amicus Brief of Partnership for Educational Justice, DelawareCan: the Delaware Campaign for Achievement Now, HawaiiKidsCan, NewMexicoKidsCan, and Virginia Excels in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
149 1:17-cv-05228	Brief of 40 Historians and the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equity, as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
132 1:17-cv-05228	Amicus Brief of 114 Companies in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
New York Dreamer Challenges Trump Administration’s Termination of DACA National Immigration Law Center	A young immigrant New Yorker and Make the Road New York (MRNY) went to federal court today to challenge the Trump administration’s termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) pro…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://www.nilc.org/...
A.G. Schneiderman Files Lawsuit To Protect Dreamers And Preserve DACA New York State Attorney General	New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman led a coalition of 16 Attorneys General in filing suit to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) grantees. The lawsuit, which was filed t…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://web.archive.org/...
Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Department of Homeland Security	"This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,' which established the prog…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States President Donald Trump		Jan. 25, 2017	Jan. 25, 2017 https://www.gpo.gov/...
Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017) DHS Secretary John Kelly		Feb. 20, 2017	Feb. 20, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements President Donald Trump		Jan. 27, 2017	Jan. 27, 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
	Case assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla)	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 PACER
1	COMPLAINT State of New York, et al. against All Defendants filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0207-9807840 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by State of North Carolina, State of Hawaii, State of Massachussetts, State Of New York, State of Virginia, State of Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, State of Washington, State of Iowa, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Illinois, State of Connecticut, State of New Mexico, State of Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Proposed Summons Elaine C. Duke, # 4 Proposed Summons DHS HQ, # 5 Proposed Summons Donald Trump, # 6 Proposed Summons ICE, # 7 Proposed Summons USCIS HQ, # 8 Proposed Summons USCIS NYC, # 9 Proposed Summons USA (DOJ)) (Rosado, Lourdes) (Entered: 09/06/2017) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Appendix View on RECAP 3 Proposed Summons Elaine C. Duke View on PACER 4 Proposed Summons DHS HQ View on PACER 5 Proposed Summons Donald Trump View on PACER 6 Proposed Summons ICE View on PACER 7 Proposed Summons USCIS HQ View on PACER 8 Proposed Summons USCIS NYC View on PACER 9 Proposed Summons USA (DOJ) View on PACER	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 Clearinghouse
2	Summons Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/06/2017)	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 RECAP
3	In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/06/2017)	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 PACER
4	This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/06/2017)	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 PACER
	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for all further proceedings. Judge Allyne R. Ross, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy no longer assigned to case Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Ordered by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 9/7/2017. (Bowens, Priscilla)	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 PACER
5	NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan B. Miller on behalf of State of Massachussetts (aty to be noticed) (Miller, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/07/2017)	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 RECAP
6	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Colleen Melody Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9810258. by State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - WA) (Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 09/07/2017) 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - WA View on PACER	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 PACER
7	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Robert Ferguson Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9810331. by State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing -WA) (Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 09/07/2017) 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing -WA View on PACER	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 PACER
8	MOTION to Reassign Case requesting reassignment to the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, because it is related to Batalla Vidal et al. v. Baran et al., No. 1:16-cv-4756 by State Of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Massachussetts, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 09/07/2017)	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 RECAP
9	ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Colleen Melody, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 15, 2017, Ms. Melody shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Melody shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Melody shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/8/2017. (Miao, Tiffany) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
10	ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Robert Ferguson, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 15, 2017, Mr. Ferguson shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Mr. Ferguson shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Mr. Ferguson shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/8/2017. (Miao, Tiffany) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
11	NOTICE of Appearance by Colleen Melody on behalf of State of Washington (notification declined or already on case) (Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
12	EXHIBIT List attaching exhibits 1-105, originally identified in ECF 1-2 by District of Columbia, State Of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Massachusetts, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington. Related document: 1 Complaint,,, filed by State of Hawaii, State of Virginia, State of Rhode Island, State Of New York, State of Iowa, State of Vermont, State of Connecticut, State of Oregon, State of Illinois, District of Columbia, State of North Carolina, State of Delaware, State of Massachusetts, State of New Mexico, State of Washington, State of Pennsylvania. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105) (Rosado, Lourdes) (Entered: 09/08/2017) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 View on PACER 4 Exhibit 4 View on PACER 5 Exhibit 5 View on PACER 6 Exhibit 6 View on PACER 7 Exhibit 7 View on PACER 8 Exhibit 8 View on PACER 9 Exhibit 9 View on PACER 10 Exhibit 10 View on PACER 11 Exhibit 11 View on PACER 12 Exhibit 12 View on PACER 13 Exhibit 13 View on PACER 14 Exhibit 14 View on PACER 15 Exhibit 15 View on PACER 16 Exhibit 16 View on PACER 17 Exhibit 17 View on PACER 18 Exhibit 18 View on PACER 19 Exhibit 19 View on PACER 20 Exhibit 20 View on PACER 21 Exhibit 21 View on PACER 22 Exhibit 22 View on PACER 23 Exhibit 23 View on PACER 24 Exhibit 24 View on PACER 25 Exhibit 25 View on PACER 26 Exhibit 26 View on PACER 27 Exhibit 27 View on PACER 28 Exhibit 28 View on PACER 29 Exhibit 29 View on PACER 30 Exhibit 30 View on PACER 31 Exhibit 31 View on PACER 32 Exhibit 32 View on PACER 33 Exhibit 33 View on PACER 34 Exhibit 34 View on PACER 35 Exhibit 35 View on PACER 36 Exhibit 36 View on PACER 37 Exhibit 37 View on PACER 38 Exhibit 38 View on PACER 39 Exhibit 39 View on PACER 40 Exhibit 40 View on PACER 41 Exhibit 41 View on PACER 42 Exhibit 42 View on PACER 43 Exhibit 43 View on PACER 44 Exhibit 44 View on PACER 45 Exhibit 45 View on PACER 46 Exhibit 46 View on PACER 47 Exhibit 47 View on PACER 48 Exhibit 48 View on PACER 49 Exhibit 49 View on PACER 50 Exhibit 50 View on PACER 51 Exhibit 51 View on PACER 52 Exhibit 52 View on PACER 53 Exhibit 53 View on PACER 54 Exhibit 54 View on PACER 55 Exhibit 55 View on PACER 56 Exhibit 56 View on PACER 57 Exhibit 57 View on PACER 58 Exhibit 58 View on PACER 59 Exhibit 59 View on PACER 60 Exhibit 60 View on PACER 61 Exhibit 61 View on PACER 62 Exhibit 62 View on PACER 63 Exhibit 63 View on PACER 64 Exhibit 64 View on PACER 65 Exhibit 65 View on PACER 66 Exhibit 66 View on PACER 67 Exhibit 67 View on PACER 68 Exhibit 68 View on PACER 69 Exhibit 69 View on PACER 70 Exhibit 70 View on PACER 71 Exhibit 71 View on PACER 72 Exhibit 72 View on PACER 73 Exhibit 73 View on PACER 74 Exhibit 74 View on PACER 75 Exhibit 75 View on PACER 76 Exhibit 76 View on PACER 77 Exhibit 77 View on PACER 78 Exhibit 78 View on PACER 79 Exhibit 79 View on PACER 80 Exhibit 80 View on PACER 81 Exhibit 81 View on PACER 82 Exhibit 82 View on PACER 83 Exhibit 83 View on PACER 84 Exhibit 84 View on PACER 85 Exhibit 85 View on PACER 86 Exhibit 86 View on PACER 87 Exhibit 87 View on PACER 88 Exhibit 88 View on PACER 89 Exhibit 89 View on PACER 90 Exhibit 90 View on PACER 91 Exhibit 91 View on PACER 92 Exhibit 92 View on PACER 93 Exhibit 93 View on PACER 94 Exhibit 94 View on PACER 95 Exhibit 95 View on PACER 96 Exhibit 96 View on PACER 97 Exhibit 97 View on PACER 98 Exhibit 98 View on PACER 99 Exhibit 99 View on PACER 100 Exhibit 100 View on PACER 101 Exhibit 101 View on PACER 102 Exhibit 102 View on PACER 103 Exhibit 103 View on PACER 104 Exhibit 104 View on PACER 105 Exhibit 105 View on PACER	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
13	NOTICE of Appearance by Ajay Saini on behalf of State Of New York (aty to be noticed) (Saini, Ajay) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
14	NOTICE of Appearance by Diane Omotayo Lucas on behalf of State Of New York (aty to be noticed) (Lucas, Diane) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
15	NOTICE of Appearance by Sania Waheed Khan on behalf of State Of New York (aty to be noticed) (Khan, Sania) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
16	NOTICE of Appearance by Ari Biernoff on behalf of State of New Mexico (aty to be noticed) (Biernoff, Ari) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Robert W. Ferguson on behalf of State of Washington (aty to be noticed) (Ferguson, Robert) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
18	NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Daniel Battles on behalf of State of Vermont (aty to be noticed) (Battles, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
19	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Marsha J. Chien Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9820306. by State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - State of Washington, # 3 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - State of California) (Chien, Marsha) (Entered: 09/11/2017) 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - State of Washington View on PACER 3 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - State of California View on PACER	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Marsha Chien on behalf of State of Washington (notification declined or already on case) (Chien, Marsha) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 19 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Marsha Chien, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 19, 2017, Ms. Chien shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Chien shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Chien shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/12/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 12, 2017	Sept. 12, 2017 PACER
21	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Matthew R. McGuire Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9825553. by State of Virginia. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing from the Commonwealth of Virginia) (McGuire, Matthew) (Entered: 09/13/2017) 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing from the Commonwealth of Virginia View on PACER	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
22	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9827403. by State of New Mexico. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice - Tania Maestas, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing - Tania Maestas) (Maestas, Tania) (Entered: 09/13/2017) 1 Affidavit Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice - Tania Maestas View on PACER 2 Certificate of Good Standing - Tania Maestas View on PACER	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
23	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9827426. by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Affidavit of Donna H. Kalama) (Kalama, Donna) (Entered: 09/13/2017) 1 Notice of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice View on PACER 2 Affidavit of Donna H. Kalama View on PACER	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 21 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Matthew McGuire, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 21, 2017, Mr. McGuire shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Mr. McGuire shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Mr. McGuire shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/14/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 22 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Tania Maestas, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 21, 2017, Ms. Maestas shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Maestas shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Maestas shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/14/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Donna Kalama, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 21, 2017, Ms. Kalama shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Kalama shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Kalama shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/14/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
24	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Genevieve Nadeau Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9829035. by State of Massachusetts. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing) (Nadeau, Genevieve) (Entered: 09/14/2017) 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing View on PACER	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
25	SUMMONS Returned Executed by State Of New York. All Defendants. (Lucas, Diane) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 RECAP
26	NOTICE of Appearance by Donna H. Kalama on behalf of State of Hawaii (notification declined or already on case) (Kalama, Donna) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
27	NOTICE of Appearance by Tania Maestas on behalf of State of New Mexico (notification declined or already on case) (Maestas, Tania) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 24 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Genevieve Nadeau, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 21, 2017, Ms. Nadeau shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Nadeau shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Nadeau shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/15/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
28	ORDER: As discussed on the record at the conference in the Batalla Vidal action on September 14, 2017, I respectfully direct the parties to meet and confer about discovery. No later than September 22, 2017, the parties shall report their respective positions on the threshold question of whether discovery should proceed now or await the resolution of the defendants' anticipated motion for dismissal. By the same date, the parties shall submit their respective scheduling proposals in the event discovery is not stayed, as well as a proposed schedule for litigating any specific discovery disputes that the parties have identified as likely to arise. I will expect the parties to be prepared to discuss all matters relating to discovery at the next conference on September 26, 2017. In light of the fact that the parties to the Batalla Vidal action have agreed to the filing of a second amended complaint that will include claims that overlap with those already asserted in State of New York action, I encourage the plaintiffs' counsel in the latter case to participate in the meet-and-confer process in the former. Although issue has not yet been joined in the State of New York action, the participation of counsel from that case in the discovery planning process in the Batalla Vidal action will help to avoid needless burdens on the parties in each case. I therefore invite counsel for the parties in the State of New York action to appear at the conference in the Batalla Vidal action on September 26, 2017, and to participate in the discussion of issues relating to the discovery process. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/15/2017. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 09/15/2017)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
29	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9832264. by State of Connecticut. (Kohler, Mark) (Entered: 09/15/2017)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
30	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Anna Crane Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-9833040. by State of Illinois. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Anna Crane in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - IL) (Crane, Anna) (Entered: 09/15/2017) 1 Affidavit of Anna Crane in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice View on PACER 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - IL View on PACER	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
31	NOTICE of Appearance by Brad Rosenberg on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 09/15/2017)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
32	NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Anthony Marutollo on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Marutollo, Joseph) (Entered: 09/15/2017)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
	ORDER granting 30 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Anna Crane, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 25, 2017, Ms. Crane shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Crane shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Crane shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/18/2017. (Miao, Tiffany)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER

Case: State of New York v. Trump

1:17-cv-05228 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details