Filed Date: Feb. 26, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 26, 2018, an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ms. L.) filed this lawsuit and a writ for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 2018 WL 1310160. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and several other government entities and officials, all under the federal asylum statute and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
This immigration case involved the United States government’s forcible separation of over 2,000 asylum-seeking families who arrived at the southern border without documentation. The plaintiff and her seven-year-old daughter were victims of this policy. Since their arrival on November 1, 2017, the plaintiff and her daughter had been detained. For the first 4 days upon arriving, they were detained together until the plaintiff was then sent to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San Diego area where she remained for nearly four months without her daughter.
Ms. L. asserted violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the federal asylum statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1158 which provides that all non-citizens with a well-founded fear of persecution shall have the opportunity to seek asylum, and APA violations for ICE’s arbitrary and capricious practices and failure to consider paroling detained asylum seekers as per its own parole directive.
When the officers separated them, the plaintiff could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother. No one explained to Ms. L why they were taking her daughter away from her, where her daughter was going, or even when she would next see her daughter. The plaintiff claimed that by forcibly taking a 7-year-old child from her mother, without justification or even a hearing, the defendants violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On March 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite resolution of said motion. The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the defendants from continuing to separate her from her daughter and argued that expedition was necessary to remedy the devastating harms that this separation was inflicting with each passing day. In support of this argument, the plaintiff offered testimony from nine medical experts who asserted that the trauma of forced separation from a parent imposes severe and long-lasting psychological and emotional damage on young children, especially children who are incarcerated and have already suffered the trauma of fleeing their home country.
For reasons not apparent from the docket, on March 8, 2018, Judge Sabraw granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to expedite. The court also required the plaintiff to provide a DNA sample to verify her maternity to her daughter. When the results of the DNA test came back on March 12, 2018, they showed a 99.99999% probability of maternity.
On March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to modify this lawsuit into a class action and add a new named plaintiff, Ms. C. 2018 WL 3155677. That same day, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, asking that the court certify a class defined as “[a]ll adult parents nationwide who (1) are or will be detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.”
On March 19, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction for classwide relief that would order the defendants to reunite the class members with their children and to discontinue their family separation practice. Given this motion, the court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion for individual preliminary relief.
On April 6, 2018, the federal government moved to dismiss the amended complaint. First, they argued that the original plaintiff’s' claims were moot because she has been released from ICE detention and reunited with her daughter. Second, the defendants asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over Ms. C.’s habeas claim and that venue was improper for Ms. C.’s other claims. Third, the defendants claimed the court lacked jurisdiction to review ICE’s decisions to detain rather than parole the plaintiffs, to review ICE’s decision about where to detain the plaintiffs, or to order ICE to detain them in a particular facility. Fourth, they contended that separation of the plaintiffs from their children did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Fifth, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under both the APA and the Asylum Act.
Partially agreeing with the defendants, Judge Sabraw granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 6, 2018. 302 F.Supp.3d 1149. Specifically, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and relating to the federal asylum statute but retained the plaintiffs’ due process claim.
The administration's practice of separating families at the border was formally abandoned on June 20, 2018, through Executive Order No. 13841. The Executive Order reestablished a policy to maintain family unity and directed that "alien families be detained together 'during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.'" The Executive Order did not provide any guidance on the reunification of families or future family separations.
On June 26, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that the class was sufficiently numerous, that there were common questions of law among the class, that the plaintiffs are typical of the class as a whole, and that the plaintiffs would represent the class adequately. 331 F.R.D. 529.
On that same day, Judge Sabraw granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a classwide preliminary injunction, requiring much from the government to remedy the harm. 310 F.Supp.3d 1133. Specifically, the court enjoined the defendants;their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys; and all those who are in active concert or participation with them, from detaining class members in DHS custody without and apart from their minor children, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child in DHS custody. Second, if the defendants chose to release class members from DHS custody, the defendants were preliminarily enjoined from continuing to detain the minor children of the class members and had to release the minor children to the custody of their respective class members. Third, the court required that the defendants must reunify all class members with their minor children who were under the age of five within fourteen days of the entry of this order and that the defendants must reunify all class members with their minor children that were age five and over within thirty days of the entry of this order. Fourth, the defendants were required to immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular communication between class members and their children who remained in DHS custody. Fifth, the defendants were required to immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular communication between and among all executive agencies responsible for the custody, detention, or shelter of class members and the custody and care of their children. Sixth, the defendants were preliminarily enjoined from removing any class members without their child, unless the class member affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declined to be reunited with the child prior to the class member’s deportation, or there was a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. Finally, the court retained jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this order and preliminary injunction. 310 F.Supp.3d 1133.
On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint claiming that the government had separated thousands of migrant families over the past year without a legitimate purpose. 2018 WL 3575383. It forwarded the idea that the government's true purpose in separating these families was to deter future families from seeking refuge (i.e., asylum) in the United States. It referenced Attorney General Jeff Session's May 2018 announcement of “a new initiative” to refer “100 percent” of immigrants who cross the Southwest border for criminal immigration prosecutions, also known as the “zero-tolerance policy," by which all parents who were prosecuted would be separated from their children. The complaint asserted that the true purpose of this new policy was to separate families in the hope that it would deter other families from seeking refuge in the United States. It also referenced President Trump's Executive Order (EO) of June 20, 2018, which purported to end the practice of family separation but allowed DHS to separate families for "the child's welfare" without setting forth how that standard would be applied. The complaint highlighted that this EO made no provision for reunifying families separated prior to its issuance or for returning children to parents who had already been deported.
The plaintiffs moved for a stay of removal and a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 16, 2018. 2018 WL 3575386. The plaintiffs requested that the court order the government not to remove parents until one week after they have been reunited with their children given rumors that the government was planning mass deportations to be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification. The plaintiffs claimed that class members were at imminent risk of deportation without being advised of their rights under the injunction or the effect of waiving their children's rights against prolonged detention under the Flores settlement.
That same day, constitutional law scholars including Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the district court's authority to grant the TRO. The scholars asserted that the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from delaying reunification of class members and their children until the eve of physical removal from the country; they said that this was because doing so would deny the plaintiffs and their families an effective means to fairly consider and present valid grounds for asylum and other relief from deportation.
In opposition to the TRO, the government argued that the district court lacked the authority from staying the deportation of class members who had final orders of expedited removal (because in the procedural posture of their individual immigration cases, many had not passed an asylum screening and so did not have the right under federal law to present their asylum claims before an immigration judge).
The parties filed a joint status report on July 19, 2018, in which the government stated that they had identified 2551 separated children from age 5 to 17 but that only 848 had been interviewed and cleared for reunification. 2018 WL 3575388. Many of these families were united but kept detained, mostly at two private family detention facilities in Texas. The plaintiffs noted that the government had failed to provide them a list of class members who had been released from ICE custody, a list of those who had been deported, as well as a list of parents with final removal orders, who needed to be counseled on their options and their children's options immediately.
The next week in July 2018, Judge Sabraw ordered the government to provide the plaintiffs with a list of all class members who had been deported and of all who had been released into the interior of the country. The court also ordered the plaintiffs and the government to produce a written plan for reuniting parents who had been deported but whose children remained in the United States; the court later ordered each to appoint people to implement those plans. On August 3, 2018, the court ordered the government to provide information regarding class members who the defendants found ineligible for reunification with their children because of alleged criminal histories.
Judge Sabraw issued an order clarifying the scope of the injunction on August 16, 2018. The court ordered that the injunctive relief did not limit DHS's authority to detain adults in its custody and that reunification did not give a parent a right to release if their detention was lawful. It further ordered that if DHS was trying to reunify a detained adult in its custody with their child, the parent could either (i) waive the child's rights under the Flores settlement so that the family could be detained together in DHS custody or (ii) waive his or her right not to be separated from his or her child under this court's injunction and allow the child to be detained in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and treated as an unaccompanied minor.
That same day, the government informed the court of a "disturbance" at the ICE family detention center in Karnes County, Texas, between adult male class members who were being held there with their children. They said that the whole group of men were separated from their children again overnight but would be returned to Karnes.
The TRO was denied as moot after Judge Sabraw granted a TRO for the plaintiffs in M.M.M et al v. Sessions (3:18-cv-01832-DMS-MDD, ECF No. 55), a family separation lawsuit filed by private counsel on August 3, 2018. The plaintiffs in M.M.M. are the children of class member parents in this case and the complaint raised issues surrounding the asylum process for families that had been separated at the border. The TRO granted for M.M.M. on August 16, 2018, stayed the deportation orders of Ms. L. class member parents pending the resolution of their children's asylum claims, in order to maintain family unity. In that order, Judge Sabraw ordered the parties in both cases to meet and confer with the government and to propose a solution.
On August 23, 2018, the parties filed a new joint status report. 2018 WL 4144367. The government reported that they had identified 2,654 separated children ages 0-5 of which 1,923 had been reunited with a separated parent and 203 had been discharged to a sponsor (i.e., another family member or adult friend of the family) or had turned 18. 528 separated children remained in ORR custody; parents of 343 children of that group had been deported. The plaintiffs had received information from the government of 412 parents who had been deported. 231 parents had been reached by the plaintiffs and NGOs but 140 had not; of that group, neither party had a phone number for 41 parents and the phone numbers of 38 parents were inoperable or ineffective. The plaintiffs noted that they were investigating reports from deported parents who appeared to have been coerced or misled by U.S. government actions that deprived them of their right to seek asylum. These incidents include parents who were told that they needed to accept removal and not pursue asylum in order to be reunited with their children, and parents who were required to sign documents they did not understand, in languages they do not speak, that had the effect of waiving their right to seek asylum.
The government appealed the court's order granting class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August 2018 (see 18-56151). Those proceedings were stayed in November 2018 before the parties had briefed the issues.
On August 30, 2018, the parties filed another joint status report in which the plaintiffs identified discrepancies between lists it provided of parents and children. They also flagged that they had learned of separated children through legal service providers and NGOs who did not appear on government lists.
The parties continued to file approximately weekly joint reports in September and October 2018 and less frequent reports in November 2018. As of September 23, 2018, 1,977 children had been reunited with their parents. Over 100 deported parents had not been reached in spite of significant NGO support.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 9, 2018. It added two named plaintiffs who were separated from their children at the time of the credible fear interviews (i.e., asylum screening) and who had received a negative determination. One of the women's negative determination had been affirmed by an immigration judge such that she had exhausted all administrative remedies and could be deported at any time. This complaint also added a right to family integrity under the Due Process Clause and asserted more robust violations under the federal asylum statute.
That same day, Judge Sabraw granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement, approving classes in this case and in M.M.M. for the purposes of settlement only. A key component of that agreement allowed parents to have a new credible fear screening in "good faith" to determine whether a positive determination is warranted; with a positive determination, an asylum seeker may submit an asylum application and present their claim before an immigration judge. This was important because many parents had received negative determinations due in part to the trauma they were experiencing while separated from their children.
On October 16, 2018, Judge Sabraw granted the plaintiffs' motion to require immediate implementation of the settlement agreement. This required the government to allow 60+ class members in detention who had elected to take advantage of the asylum procedures set out in the settlement agreement but who the government had refused to orient until final approval of the settlement. The court noted that it was the government's statutory obligation to allow people asserting a fear of persecution access to an asylum screening.
The government informed the court on October 25, 2018 that it had released a total of 2,404 children and was working towards release of an additional 47.
Together and Free, a grassroots organization that provides assistance to separated families, filed a notice of objection on November 6, 2018 to the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement agreement. It noted that many families which were treated as reunified were not in fact, as many parents remained in ICE custody while their children had been released to friends or extended family members. It also highlighted that deported family members did not receive adequate relief, as the settlement only would allow a reopening of their cases and a new asylum screening in "rare and unusual" instances.
The court certified the settlement classes and granted final approval of the class action settlement on November 15, 2018, in response to the plaintiffs' motion filed the week prior. 2018 WL 7075890. Separate counsel were appointed for each of three groups: nonprofit organizations for members of the parent class who remained physically present in the United States, the ACLU for members of the parent class who had been physically removed from the United States, and private counsel for the child class. It provides that class members with expedited removal orders are entitled to a sua sponte review of their negative credible fear determinations and the opportunity to present additional evidence to an asylum officer.
On December 14, 2018, the ACLU requested that the court clarify that the scope of the Ms. L class included parents whose children were separated from them before June 26, 2018, which was the date when the court granted the preliminary injunction. The government filed their opposition to this motion on February 6, 2019 (the deadline was extended because of a government shutdown), arguing that this backward-looking definition conflicted with the forward-looking language of the settlement. 2019 WL 927180. The court granted this motion on March 8, 2019, and modified the class definition to include parents who entered on or before June 1, 2017; the court noted that there was no dispute that they were subjected to the same family separation policies as the parents who indisputably fit into the scope of the class. 330 F.R.D. 284.
On February 8, 2019, the court issued an order further clarifying the settlement agreement. It states that where a child was issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court but a parent had not because they had received a negative CFI determination, the parent's case would be reviewed again so that both parent and child were deported or both placed in immigration court proceedings.
On February 22, 2019, the court issued an order on the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement for class members who had not submitted executed waiver forms, after the plaintiffs filed their reply in support of this motion on February 13. 2019 WL 259140. Judge Sabraw did not outright grant the motion but ordered the government to provide plaintiffs' counsel with a list of names of people subject to removal for failure to execute these forms. The court also required that the government advise ICE to not remove class members until they were advised of their rights under the settlement agreement and an opportunity to execute the relevant forms.
On April 5, 2019, the government filed a proposed plan to identify additional Ms. L. class members through statistical analysis of ORR records of 47,000 children who were released from its custody on or after June 1, 2017. From there, the government said they would manually review the case records of children who appeared to have the highest probability of having been separated, a process that they estimate will take 2 years to complete.
Following a status conference and review of the parties' status report, Judge Sabraw issued an order on April 25, 2019, approving the government's plan to identify additional class members and mandating that the plan be completed within six months. 2019 WL 1868487.
On June 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to allow 21 parents deported without their children to travel to the U.S. to obtain an opportunity to reunite with their children. The parents are part of a group of 51 parents deported without their children that the plaintiffs identified as being deprived of an opportunity to apply for asylum, currently in danger, and possessing bonafide asylum claims. The government rejected all 51 applications without any individualized explanations. However, 30 of these parents managed to make it to the U.S.-Mexico border and all of them passed their credible fear interviews or were placed directly into immigration proceedings before an immigration judge, and were subsequently reunified with their children. The plaintiffs asserted that the remaining 21 parents are no different than those 30 and sought a remedy, appropriate under the Settlement Agreement and Ninth Circuit law, to provide a pathway to legal travel to the U.S. where they would "almost certainly" pass their credible fear interviews and reunite with their children.
On July 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction and request that the court clarify the standard for ongoing separations. The plaintiffs asserted that from June 2018 to June 2019 the defendants separated more than 900 children based on criminal history of the parents, no matter how insignificant the crime, and a unilateral determination that the parent is unfit or dangerous. The plaintiffs requested that the court set guidelines and work with the parties to create a process for resolving disputes about separations. The defendants argued that their practices were no different than the practices of other administrations and that the number of separations was a small fraction of individuals entering the border during that time, reflecting a careful exercise of discretion consistent with the court's order.
On September 4, 2019, Judge Sabraw issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to allow parents deported without their children to travel to the United States. After initially requesting relief for 21 parents, the plaintiffs reduced the request to 18 parents. The court found that 11 of the parents were entitled to the requested relief and 7 were not, as these parents failed to prove that they were wrongfully removed. 403 F.Supp.3d 853.
After holding a status conference with the parties, Judge Sabraw issued an order on September 20, 2019, mandating that defendants "produce all governing documents memorializing standardized procedures, guidelines and guidance for separating parents and children at the border."
The government informed the court on October 16, 2019, that it had released 2,788 children out of 2,814 possible children of potential class members for the original class period and identified 1,290 children of potential expanded class members.
On January 13, 2020, Judge Sabraw issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a preliminary injunction. Judge Sabraw, considering the defendants' implementation of guidelines and additional practices, its authority to secure the borders, and the scope of the class and need to avoid individualized determinations, found that defendants were exercising discretion consistent with the court's orders and plaintiffs' right to family integrity. Accordingly, Judge Sabraw concluded that there was no need for the court to intervene to further enforce the preliminary injunction. However, Judge Sabraw did find that the defendants were not acting consistently with the court's order with regard to DNA testing and requested clarification regarding separations based on family residential center standards. 415 F.Supp.3d 980.
The defendants filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal in the Ninth Circuit on February 26, 2020. The appeal had been stayed since November 2018 and no briefs had been filed by either party. On March 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants motion and dismissed the appeal.
On March 10, 2021 the parties issued a joint Status Report after the court ordered the parties to inform the Court of how President Biden’s February 2, 2021 “Executive Order on the Establishment of the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families” affected the litigation. The parties agreed to enter into settlement negotiations and agreed that the Task Force would work in conjunction with the settlement negotiations to address the issues from litigation. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin for settlement discussions. The government agreed to begin reunifying families during settlement negotiations to the extent possible.
The parties met for a preliminary settlement conference on March 17, 2021 and proceeded to meet over the course of the following two years and provided periodic status reports on the progress of reunification of families. On June 10, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated motion asking that the Court order the government to facilitate the reunification of families by considering for parole certain individuals who the parties agreed were eligible for relief, and returning those individuals for whom parole was granted to the United States at government expense. The Court entered the requested order on January 28, 2022. The parties filed a similar motion for consideration of parole of certain class members present in the United States, and the order was granted on January 31, 2022. The parties also filed a joint motion on April 29, 2022, which the Court granted on May 2, 2022, ordering the government to provide behavioral health services to the plaintiffs and their children during the ongoing settlement discussions.
On April 18, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a limited modification of the Class, which would include parents separated from their children who were US citizens, and the child was therefore not taken into DHS custody. The Court granted the modification on April 19, 2023, and the Class was modified to “All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry on or after July 1, 2017, who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, or where the separated child is a U.S. citizen and therefore was not sent to ORR custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.”
On May 1, 2023, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard for further settlement proceedings. On October 16, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court granted on October 24, 2023. A fairness hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2023. On December 1, 2023 the parties filed a joint motion for final approval of the settlement agreement, which was granted on December 11, 2023. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice except that the Court retained jurisdiction for specified purposes subject to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The settlement was estimated to cover 4,500 - 5,000 children and their parents. Under the agreement, the government agreed to continue to identify families that were separated, fund family reunification in the US, provide support services for class members inside the US, and provide pathways to seek asylum. The government also agreed not to enact the zero-tolerance policy moving forward.
As of April 25, 2024, the government is working towards meeting the terms of the settlement.
Summary Authors
Jake Parker (6/28/2018)
Veronica Portillo Heap (4/7/2019)
Aaron Gurley (3/3/2020)
Rabeya Mallick (5/17/2024)
M.G.U. v. Nielsen, District of District of Columbia (2018)
State of Washington v. United States of America, Western District of Washington (2018)
N.T.C. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Southern District of California (2018)
M.M.M. v. Sessions, Southern District of California (2018)
Dora v. Sessions, District of District of Columbia (2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6316323/parties/ms-l-v-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/
Amdur, Spencer E. W. (California)
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)
Bettwy, Samuel William (California)
Barmeyer, Wilson G. (California)
Batool, Fizza (California)
Barmeyer, Wilson G. (California)
Briesacher, Christina (California)
Casamassima, Christopher T. (California)
Derieux, Adriel I. (California)
Dycus, Jamie Stephen (California)
Flentje, August Edward (California)
Frahn, Harrison J. (California)
Galindo, Daniel Antonio (California)
Gonzalez, Carmen Gloria (California)
Gregg, Sophia Leticia (California)
Kronenberg, Chet A (California)
Levine, Noah Adam (California)
McClarnon, Carol T. (California)
McNerney, Martin M. (California)
Neglia, Ashley Elizabeth (California)
Reiter, Charles D. (California)
Romano, Julia Elizabeth (California)
Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon Yehuda (California)
Smith, Johnathan James (California)
Stewart, Scott G. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6316323/ms-l-v-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/
Last updated May 17, 2024, 2:33 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 26, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry on or after July 1, 2017, who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, or where the separated child is a U.S. citizen and therefore was not sent to ORR custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Order Duration: 2018 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: