Filed Date: Oct. 10, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit, brought on October 10, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenged President Trump's revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs were Santa Clara County and a labor union representing thousands of county employees, and they sought to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only did the DACA recipients stand to lose benefits and security they had relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that their employers and communities stood to lose the benefits these recipients provided to them. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process, equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment.
In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program via DHS policy statements. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless Congress acted within the next six months. As the complaint highlights, the Obama administration promoted DACA by making key promises to immigrants: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement, and that barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits.
The plaintiff Santa Clara stated that 38% of its residents are born outside of the U.S., and that its high immigrant population meant that DACA’s rescission would be particularly harmful to the county. The other plaintiff, Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Local 521), was a labor union that represents over 10,000 individuals employed by Santa Clara county. Local 521 joined the suit to protect the rights of its current and future members, and to act on their behalf. The plaintiffs argued that DACA recipients had come to rely on the program and on the assurances that their private application information would not be used against them, but that both their ability to receive important benefits and be safe from deportation were put in danger. The plaintiffs further argued that the government did not provide sound rationale for its decision to rescind DACA, and that this decision was clearly driven by racial animus.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. On October 16, the case was related to the other DACA cases under Judge William Alsup. This case was also reassigned to him. The related cases are: State of California v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 17-cv-5235), Garcia v. USA (No. 17-cv-5380), City of San Jose v. Trump (No. 17-cv-05329), and Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 17-cv-05211); all of which are in this Clearinghouse.
On October 6, in a related challenge led by Regents of University of California before this judge, the government filed the administrative record, available here, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA—from its inception to the decision to rescind it. On October 17, after the University in the related case moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so in all related cases, including this one. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission, specifically documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. On October 18, the defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court declined to enter a stay, and the defendants appealed by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the district court and emergency motion for stay. On October 23, the district court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until the DACA was scheduled to end on March 5, 2018.
On November 16, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered. The District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by November 22. On November 17, the federal government filed an emergency motion noting that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the Supreme Court, and requesting that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the forthcoming petition. On November 21, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction was with the District Court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus.
Meanwhile, in the District Court, Judge Alsup on November 20 agreed to stay all discovery until December 22, at which point the augmented administrative record was due.
On December 1, 2017, the government filed notice that they appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court. On December 21 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case, arguing that the district court should have stayed implementation of the October 17 order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government’s threshold arguments" (that the Acting Secretary’s determination to rescind DACA was unreviewable because it was "committed to agency discretion," 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction). "Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record." 138 S.Ct. 443 (2017). The same day, the district court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record.
On January 9, 2018, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction from November 2017 and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. The order indicated the court would separately dismiss the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the rescission. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who never before received deferred action. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on January 12, dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims, as well as the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases).
The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit one week later. The government also sought certiorari from the Supreme Court on January 18 while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, arguing that the Supreme Court's immediate review was warranted because of how long the appeal would take in the Ninth Circuit and how time sensitive the issue was. The Supreme Court denied cert without prejudice on February 26, 2018, indicating the justices assumed "that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case."
The related cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit for the purposes of appeal. In February and March 2018, the parties and amici filed their briefs, which can be found here.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on November 8, 2018. The panel held that the government's decision to rescind DACA was reviewable because it was based on a belief that law foreclosed any alternative because the agency lacked authority rather than an exercise of discretion. The panel further concluded the decision was reviewable because the government based rescission only on the belief that DACA went beyond DHS' authority and so the APA's bar did not apply, and the decision did not fall within the three discrete occasions when the INA bars judicial review of DHS decisions. As to the merits of preliminary injunction, the panel held that "DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion" and the government's belief that DACA was illegal was wrong. 908 F.3d 476. Thus, the panel concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The panel also held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because it "promotes uniformity in immigration enforcement, and is necessary to provide the plaintiffs here with complete redress." Id.
The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5, 2018.
On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in three DACA cases: Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and NAACP v. Trump, all of which were pending before different circuit courts of appeal. The Court consolidated the three cases (No. 18-587).
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 (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA, that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program, and that the rescission was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious in violation fo the APA. 140 S. Ct. 1891.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, in another case challenging the DACA recession, Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandate to reinstate DACA and set aside the recession memo on a nationwide basis on June 30, 2020. On July 17, 2020, the District Court of Maryland ordered DHS to reinstate DACA as it existed before the issuance of the recession memo and ordered DHS to resume accepting initial DACA applications.
However, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf instead 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 ("Wolf Memorandum"). In this memo, Acting Secretary 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. Later in August, Deputy Director for Policy for USCIS Joseph Edlow issued a memorandum implementing the Wolf Memorandum.
On August 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2020. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs substituted some of the defendants to reflect new individuals occupying the relevant roles and to add additional responsible officials, including Deputy Director for Policy Edlow. The amended complaint argued that Acting Secretary Wolf's actions were invalid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Action, Homeland Security Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because he lacked proper authority to issue the Wolf Memorandum. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Wolf Memorandum and Edlow Memorandum violated the APA because Wolf and Edlow acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction preventing the defendants from altering or limiting DACA program and vacating the Wolf and Edlow Memoranda.
Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in another case challenging the Wolf Memorandum,Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump, ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017 after it found that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary. 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.
Then, in early 2021, President Biden took office. 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.” In light of potential additional agency action to implement the memorandum, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay further proceedings and vacate pending deadlines on March 22, 2021. They agreed to provide the court with status updates every 60 days. The first is due May 24, 2021. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (11/8/2018)
Sam Kulhanek (2/27/2019)
Eva Richardson (5/19/2019)
Sam Kulhanek (2/14/2020)
Emily Kempa (5/14/2021)
State of New York v. Trump, Eastern District of New York (2017)
State of California v. Department of Homeland Security, Northern District of California (2017)
City of San Jose v. Trump, Northern District of California (2017)
Garcia v. United States of America, Northern District of California (2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6179844/parties/county-of-santa-clara-v-trump/
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Alsup, William Haskell (California)
Almadani, Monica Marie-Ramirez (California)
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
Axelrod, Julie Beth (California)
Almadani, Monica Marie-Ramirez (California)
Berengaut, Alexander A. (California)
Berger, Justin Theodore (California)
Chahal, Harpreet Kaur (California)
Crowley, Megan Anne (California)
Davidson, Jeffrey Michael (California)
Douglas, Erika M. (California)
Friedlander, Julia M.C. (California)
Gorsuch, Neil M. (District of Columbia)
Hamill, Norman J. (California)
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California)
Kieschnick, Hannah (California)
Leyton, Stacey M. (California)
Mincer, Jonathan Yakov (California)
Nyquist, Ashley Ciara (California)
Passe, Julianna F. (Minnesota)
Patwardhan, Kimberly L (Maine)
Quinones, Marcelo (California)
Robinson, Charles Furlonge (California)
Rodgers, Megan Louise (California)
Rodriquez, Matthew (California)
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
Sanchez, Sonya Una (California)
Sullivan, Steven M. (Maryland)
Trice, Laura Susan (California)
Troncoso, Michael A. (California)
Ventresca, Ivano Michael (California)
Weissglass, Jonathan (California)
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
Axelrod, Julie Beth (California)
Bersin, Alan Douglas (California)
Bohorquez, Fernando A. (California)
Boutrous, Theodore J. (California)
Carome, Patrick J. (California)
Carter, Margaret Louise (California)
Chopra, Apalla U. (California)
Crooks, James Wesley (California)
Deol, John-Paul Singh (California)
Dettmer, Ethan D. (California)
Dundas, Michael Joseph (California)
Feuer, Michael Nelson (California)
Fineman, Nancy L. (California)
Giang, Albert Quoc (California)
Goldman, Lauren R. (California)
Gray, Danielle C. (California)
Harrell, James Wells (California)
Harrison, Lindsay Claire (California)
Kochsiek, Blythe Golay (California)
Leheny, Emma (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Janine Marie (California)
McGinnis, James Landon (California)
Perrelli, Thomas J. (California)
Piers, Matthew J. (California)
Pincus, Andrew John (California)
Popovic, Neil A. Freidman (California)
Sokoler, Jennifer B. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6179844/county-of-santa-clara-v-trump/
Last updated Feb. 6, 2025, 10:25 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 10, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Santa Clara County and a labor union
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
Department of Homeland Security, 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):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Immigration/Border:
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)