Filed Date: July 10, 2020
Closed Date: Oct. 20, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This is a lawsuit brought by Johns Hopkins University regarding the July 2020 release of ICE regulations which, in effect, meant that students on F-1 visas would risk deportation if their school shifted to online learning. In a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same July directive, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded. In order to effectuate the rescission, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance which exempted students from the limitation on online learning credits in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Johns Hopkins later voluntarily dismissed the university's claims.
Background
Generally speaking, F-1 visas (colloquially "student visas") can be granted to international students who attend American universities. However, regulations on the granting of these visas limit the amount of online or distance learning the student can engage in. According to these regulations, an international student can engage in only one such class or three credits of that class per semester. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(6)(i)(G).
The COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 made this regulation untenable, as schools and universities had to shift to online learning systems. In response, defendant ICE issued an exemption on March 13, 2020, affirming that international students would be permitted to continue distance learning in the United States under their F-1 visas. The exemption would apply until the end of the emergency. However, on July 6, 2020, ICE issued a new directive stating that it would rescind that exemption. This directive would then mean that international students at schools that would still be fully online would have to either transfer to other schools that were at least partially in-person, go back to their countries voluntarily, or risk deportation. The directive also ordered schools that had gone fully online or had simply decided not to have classes to submit an "operational change plan" within nine days, and ordered schools that would have a hybrid system to certify each F-1 student to make sure that they were not taking entirely online courses.
The Lawsuit
In response to the new directive, Johns Hopkins University filed this lawsuit on July 10, 2020, represented by private counsel. The University sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Plaintiffs argued that the new directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in a number of ways. First, the complaint asserted that the new directive was arbitrary and capricious, because it did not give a reasoned basis for the new action nor consider important elements of the problem and it failed to consider important reliance interests established since the original exemption in March. Second, the university asserted that the new directive violated the APA because it did not actually rescind or even amend the previous order, and was therefore in contradiction of established law, violating the APA. Third, the university claimed that this new directive did not follow the proper procedure, because defendants failed to abide by notice-and-comment rule-making procedures when issuing the order. The university also asserted the directive violated due process because it constituted deprivation of property without any notice or opportunity to be heard and it left no indication as to how the university and its international students could retain their visas. Finally, the complaint asserted that the order violated guarantees of academic freedom under the First Amendment.
The university sought injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing the directive. They also sought an order vacating and setting aside the directive, as well as declaratory relief. The university also sought attorney's fees and costs.
On July 13, the university submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from enforcing the directive. That same day, the case was assigned to Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. Judge Friedrich instructed defendants to file a response to Johns Hopkins' motion for a temporary restraining order by the next day, July 14.
Meanwhile, in a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same directive, President and Fellows of Harvard College, the parties conferred and the government agreed to rescind their implementation of the directive and to return to the March policy.
The court denied the university's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as moot on July 14. On October 6, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as moot and the university filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on October 20, 2020.
Summary Authors
Jack Hibbard (7/14/2020)
Chandler Hart-McGonigle (11/29/2020)
State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Northern District of California (2020)
Z.W. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Central District of California (2020)
University of Oregon v. United States Department of Homeland Security, District of Oregon (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17340371/parties/johns-hopkins-university-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Friedrich, Dabney Langhorne (District of Columbia)
Nichols, Carl John (District of Columbia)
Burck, William A (District of Columbia)
Crook, Jamie Lorraine (California)
Galindo, Daniel Antonio (New York)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Harrold, Adrienne (California)
Kang, Stephen B. (California)
Lev, Marina (California)
Morgan, Shon (California)
Friedrich, Dabney Langhorne (District of Columbia)
Nichols, Carl John (District of Columbia)
Burck, William A (District of Columbia)
Crook, Jamie Lorraine (California)
Galindo, Daniel Antonio (New York)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Harrold, Adrienne (California)
Kang, Stephen B. (California)
Lev, Marina (California)
Morgan, Shon (California)
Nix-Hines, Crystal (California)
Perez, Celso Javier (New York)
Russell, Morgan (California)
Shaffer, Derek L. (District of Columbia)
Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia)
Sullivan, Kathleen M (California)
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
Craigmyle, Bradley (District of Columbia)
Lin, Jean (District of Columbia)
Simon, Jeremy S (District of Columbia)
Snell, Kevin Matthew (District of Columbia)
Harrison, Lindsay C (District of Columbia)
Hirose, Mariko (New York)
Levine, Noah Adam (New York)
Wolfson, Paul Reinherz (District of Columbia)
Gange, Stephen (Maryland)
Kumar, Sunil (Maryland)
Mackenzie, Ellen (Maryland)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17340371/johns-hopkins-university-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated June 7, 2022, 3:11 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 10, 2020
Closing Date: Oct. 20, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Johns Hopkins University
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
General:
Immigration/Border: