Filed Date: Nov. 3, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit, brought on November 3, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenged President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The plaintiffs were Microsoft, the Trustees of Princeton University, and a DACA recipient attending Princeton University as an undergraduate. The plaintiffs benefited from and relied upon DACA in various ways, and they argued that its termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
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. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. 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. As the complaint highlighted, in promoting DACA, the Obama administration had made 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.
In addition to the individual plaintiff’s reliance on DACA, the complaint argued that Princeton and Microsoft benefited from and relied upon the contributions DACA recipients made as students and employees. They argued that the termination of the DACA program would put DACA recipients at risk for deportation, loss of benefits, and having the information they used to enroll in DACA used against them. The rescission would also cost Princeton and Microsoft the contributions of students and employees who had been able to join those communities because of DACA. Moreover, Princeton and Microsoft would lose the return on their investment given the resources put into students and employees, diversity in their communities, and competitive edge in the world. Ultimately, the plaintiffs argued, the DACA rescission would lead to “loss of opportunity in the United States.” Further, the complaint indicated that the rationale for terminating the program was confusing and at odds with other administration policies and views.
The case was assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper and marked as related to NAACP v. Trump on November 3, 2017 (these two cases were later consolidated).
On November 22, 2017, the defendants moved for dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment. They argued that the case was not justiciable because “[t]he Rescission Policy is a classic exercise of enforcement discretion ‘presumed immune from judicial review.’” Further, they argued that the complaint failed on the merits because DACA was “indistinguishable” from DAPA (“Deferred Action for Parents of Americans”), a related program which had never been implemented due to a nationwide injunction from the Fifth Circuit. The defendants argued they had provided a rational explanation for their policy change, that the rescission did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking, and that DACA recipients had no constitutional right to deferred action.
On December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and/or preliminary injunction. They argued that the rescission of DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because the government had not offered legal analysis for its decision to rescind, and because the government had ignored the reliance that millions of people had placed on DACA. Recognizing that DACA recipients had provided personal information to the government as part of the DACA program, the plaintiffs sought to bar the government from using such information for current enforcement purposes.
The court received amicus briefs from nearly 200 individuals and organizations, including:
On April 24, 2018, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ procedural APA and information-sharing claims, and sustained the substantive APA and constitutional claims. 298 F. Supp. 3d 209. The court deferred ruling on the equal protection claim, but granted summary judgment on the substantive APA claim. It held that DHS had violated the APA, finding that the rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious because “[n]either 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 vacated DHS’s decision to rescind DACA, ordering DHS to accept and process new and 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.”
The government moved to have the court revise the order, but the court denied the motion on August 3, 2018, holding that although the government had provided additional information regarding its decision to rescind DACA, it had “fail[ed] to elaborate meaningfully on the agency’s primary rationale for its decision.” 315 F. Supp. 3d 457. Instead, the government had simply “repackaged” its previous legal arguments, and inappropriately added post hoc rationalizations to justify its actions.
The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 6, 2018. Oral argument was held on February 22, 2019 before Judges Griffith, Millett, and Edwards.
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 plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims were moot. The district court granted the motion to clarify on August 17, 2018. 321 F. Supp. 3d 143. It also granted the motion for a stay, but only as to new DACA applications and applications for advance parole; the court’s order for DHS to process DACA renewal applications remained in effect.
While the government’s appeal was pending in the D.C. Circuit, the government also appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, consolidating NAACP v. Trump with 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.
The Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in all three cases, affirming the judgment of the district court in this case. 140 S. Ct. 1891.
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
Virginia Weeks (11/7/2017)
Virginia Weeks (8/17/2018)
Eva Richardson (5/20/2019)
Gregory Marsh (7/23/2020)
Emily Kempa (5/14/2021)
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, Eastern District of New York (2016)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6185656/parties/trustees-of-princeton-university-v-united-states-of-america/
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Mark B.
Attorney, Thomas Gary
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
Anyanwu, Chidera (District of Columbia)
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bates, John D. (District of Columbia)
Cooper, Christopher Reid (District of Columbia)
Edwards, Harry Thomas (District of Columbia)
Griffith, Thomas Beall (District of Columbia)
Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)
Millett, Patricia Ann (District of Columbia)
Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bailey, Kate (District of Columbia)
Bhabha, Ishan K (District of Columbia)
Eidelson, Ben (District of Columbia)
Harrison, Lindsay C (District of Columbia)
Hirsch, Sam (District of Columbia)
Horwitz, Julia (District of Columbia)
McNamara, Douglas J. (District of Columbia)
Perrelli, Thomas J. (District of Columbia)
Selesnick, Julie S. (District of Columbia)
Davis, Kathryn Celia (District of Columbia)
Lucas, Gerald Brinton (District of Columbia)
Pezzi, Stephen M. (District of Columbia)
Talmor, Kate (District of Columbia)
Thorp, Galen N. (District of Columbia)
Westmoreland, Rachael (District of Columbia)
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
Anyanwu, Chidera (District of Columbia)
Axelrod, Julie B. (District of Columbia)
Callais, Amanda R. (District of Columbia)
Carome, Patrick J. (District of Columbia)
Coston, William D. (District of Columbia)
Geltzer, Joshua A. (District of Columbia)
Greenbaum, Jon M. (District of Columbia)
Hacker, Jonathon D. (New York)
Hajec, Christopher J. (District of Columbia)
Hohenstein, Elizabeth A. (District of Columbia)
Holtzblatt, Ari (District of Columbia)
Levine, Paul Marc (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Janine Marie (Massachusetts)
Pincus, Andrew J. (District of Columbia)
Scherb, Matthew Alex (California)
Sherman, Monique R (California)
Siegel, Joshua Michael (District of Columbia)
Sokoler, Jennifer B (New York)
Spiva, Bruce V. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6185656/trustees-of-princeton-university-v-united-states-of-america/
Last updated Dec. 17, 2024, 11:43 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: District of Columbia
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: Nov. 3, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individual DACA recipient, Princeton University, and Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Type(s):
Closely-held (for profit) corporation
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
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
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Immigration/Border:
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)