Filed Date: Sept. 18, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program through policy statements by the Department of Homeland Security. The program offered work permits—and temporary protection from deportation—to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he would end the program in March 2018 unless Congress acted to provide statutory authorization for the program and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum on September 5, 2017 ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This lawsuit, filed on September 18, 2017 in the US. District Court for the District of Columbia, was one of many cases challenging President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) program.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") initially filed this complaint, and later amended to add the American Federation of Teachers and United Food Commerical Workers International Union as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Cohen Milstein, argued that the termination of DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court held that DACA's recession was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to process new and renewal DACA applications. The defendants ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, and on June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this case.
In the complaint, the plaintiff stated that the Trump Administration, by ending DACA, had "unlawfully [reneged] on [its] promise to protect young, undocumented immigrants of color living in the United States." The plaintiff also noted that 95% of DACA recipients were people of color, including people of African, Latin American, Asian, and Middle Eastern descent. Some DACA recipients were also NAACP members. Thus, the NAACP brought the suit in its organizational capacity on behalf of its DACA-recipient members.
The complaint asserted that DACA allowed children brought to the United States who met specific criteria to request deferred action for two years, subject to renewal. In addition to protecting grantees from being arrested solely due to their immigration status, DACA allowed its grantees to receive public benefits like social security, to enroll in higher education institutions, and to increase income and assets. All throughout the implementation process, the federal government enforcing DACA clearly represented that it would not use the information obtained in the application process to enforce immigration policy. Furthermore, the government promised that recipients would only lose their lawful presence for reasons of fraud, criminal conduct, national security, or public safety.
The plaintiff argued that these recipients would now lose their protections and be at risk for deportation, especially since the grantees provided the federal government with sensitive information in their applications, and "termination of the DACA Program is accompanied by withdrawal of the guarantee that information provided by DACA applicants and registrants will not be used in deportation proceedings."
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had violated Fifth Amendment due process by rescinding DACA, and would do so again by using sensitive information in deportation proceedings. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by carrying out government action without a "legitimate and reasoned basis." Specifically, the automatic DACA termination, with no notice or opportunity to respond, ran contrary to USCIS's DACA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act, by carrying out regulatory action that would harm small organizations such as the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought declaratory relief, as well as injunctive relief preventing defendants from withdrawing DACA and from using DACA recipients' application information in actions against them, their families, or their employers.
The case was assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper on Sept. 19, 2017.
On Oct. 24, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint added as plaintiffs the American Federation of Teachers and the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union. All organizational plaintiffs had DACA-registrant members.
On Nov. 8, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing (as they were not injured as organizations nor did they identify injured members); that the defendants' recession of DACA was a non-justiciable exercise of enforcement discretion; that a rational explanation supported the defendants' decision under the APA; and that the plaintiffs lacked a protected due process interest in DACA. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment.
On Dec. 15, the plaintiffs moved to submit declarations from nine pseudonymous DACA-recipient members of the organizational plaintiffs. On Jan. 3, 2018, the case was re-assigned to Judge John D. Bates. On Jan. 18, this case was consolidated with Trustees of Princeton University v. U.S.A., with NAACP v. Trump designated as the lead case.
On April 24, 2018, Judge John D. Bates held that the district court had both jurisdiction and statutory authority to hear the plaintiffs' APA and constitutional claims. 298 F. Supp. 3d 209. The court concluded that under the APA, DHS’ September 5, 2017 decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious, for DHS failed to adequately explain why the program was unlawful: “Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.” The Court thereby granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the substantive APA claim, but denied their motion as to the procedural APA claim, and denied their motion for preliminary injunctive relief on their information-sharing claim. The decision to rescind DACA was vacated and remanded to DHS, which meant that DHS must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications. However, the Court stayed its vacatur order for 90 days to allow the agency an opportunity to better explain its rescission decision.
On August 3, 2018, the Court denied the government’s motion to revise the April 2018 order. 315 F. Supp. 3d 457. The Court held that while the government had provided additional policy grounds concerning the decision to rescind DACA, “most of these simply repackage legal arguments previously made, and hence are ‘insufficiently independent from the agency’s evaluation of DACA’s legality’ to preclude judicial review or to support the agency’s decision.” The Court noted that it had already once given DHS the opportunity to provide explanations, so it would not do so again, though it did stay the order of vacatur for 20 days. In relation to the relief granted by the Court, it specifically noted that DHS does not lack the statutory or constitutional authority to rescind DACA, but rather, that DHS must give a rational explanation for its decision to rescind DACA. Several days later, the government appealed to the DC Circuit Court.
On August 14, 2018, the government filed a motion for the district court to stay its April 24 decision, pending the appeal in the D.C. Circuit, and a motion to clarify that the August 3 order was a final, appealable judgment and that the plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims were moot. Three days later, the district court granted a limited stay of its April 24 order as it applies to initial DACA applications and applications for DACA-based advance parole so as to preserve the status quo pending the appeal (as suggested by the plaintiffs). 321 F. Supp. 3d 143. It also granted the motion to clarify.
In November 2018, while the appeal was pending, the Government simultaneously filed three petitions for certiorari before judgment, in this case, Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, also challenging the DACA rescission. In Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the district courts had granted a nationwide injunction to maintain the DACA program. All three cases were appealed to the Circuit Courts as well. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral argument on the appeal from NAACP on February 22, 2019.
On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petitions and consolidated NAACP v. Trump, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 139 S. Ct. 2779. The three consolidated cases were heard under the caption of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. 139 S.Ct. 2779. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019, on the issues of whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy was judicially reviewable and whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was lawful. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants did not follow proper APA procedures.
On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in all three cases, affirming the judgment of the district court in this case. 140 S. Ct. 1891. It held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program.
As a result, on July 23, 2020, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the district court, with instructions to remand to the Department of Homeland Security for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. The district court remanded the same day.
The Department of Homeland Security then issued a memorandum entitled "Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" on July 28, 2020. In this memo, Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf stated that he would reconsider DACA's future in light of the Supreme Court's decision. In the interim, the memo instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods.
In a joint status report on September 16, 2020, the plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to challenge the July 28th Wolf Memorandum, but reserved the right to do so in the future or to challenge any future agency actions with respect to DACA. They asked the court to continue holding the cases in abeyance.
Though the plaintiffs in this case declined to challenge the July 28th Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump challenged the memo, arguing that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully appointed to his position and did not have authority to issue the memo and that the memo was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court in Batalla Vidal and State of New York found that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary and did not have authority to issue the memo. On December 4, 2020, the court in Batalla Vidal and State of New York ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. 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.
In January 2021, President Biden took office and immediately shifted the executive's approach to DACA. On the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2021), President Biden signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General “to preserve and fortify DACA." As of May 14, 2021, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Ava Morgenstern (1/19/2018)
Dawn Lui (11/7/2018)
Sam Kulhanek (2/20/2020)
Averyn Lee (6/18/2020)
Emily Kempa (5/14/2021)
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, Eastern District of New York (2016)
Wolf v. Vidal, Eastern District of New York (2016)
State of New York v. Trump, Eastern District of New York (2017)
Trustees of Princeton University v. U.S., District of District of Columbia (2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6285016/parties/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-trump/
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bates, John D. (District of Columbia)
Berry, Bradford (Maryland)
Bailey, Kate (District of Columbia)
Bhabha, Ishan K (District of Columbia)
Bowser, Renee L. (District of Columbia)
Clark, Nicholas (District of Columbia)
Cooper, Channing M. (District of Columbia)
Ellis, Jonathan Y. (District of Columbia)
Ford, Peter J. (District of Columbia)
Francisco, Noel (District of Columbia)
Harrison, Lindsay C (District of Columbia)
Horwitz, Julia (District of Columbia)
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia)
McNamara, Douglas J. (District of Columbia)
Mooppan, Hashim M. (District of Columbia)
Pulham, Thomas (District of Columbia)
Romero, Ramona E. (New Jersey)
Rutter, Jessica (District of Columbia)
Selesnick, Julie S. (District of Columbia)
Sellers, Joseph Marc (District of Columbia)
Stern, Mark B (District of Columbia)
Strom, David J. (District of Columbia)
Bailey, Kate (District of Columbia)
Bhabha, Ishan K (District of Columbia)
Hirsch, Sam (District of Columbia)
Perrelli, Thomas J. (District of Columbia)
Pezzi, Stephen M. (District of Columbia)
Randall, Cynthia L. (Washington)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Ricketts, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
Shumate, Brett (District of Columbia)
Trepp, Alex (District of Columbia)
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6285016/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-trump/
Last updated March 31, 2024, 3:04 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Immigration (1 & 2) Enforcement Order Challenges
Challenges to the First Trump Administration
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 18, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The NAACP, AFT union, and UFCW union, in their organizational capacity on behalf of their DACA-recipient members
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
President of the United States, Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)