Case: University of Oregon v. United States Department of Homeland Security

6:20-cv-01127 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: July 13, 2020

Closed Date: Aug. 27, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This is a lawsuit brought by the University of California regents regarding the July 2020 release of ICE regulations which, in effect, meant that students on F-1 visas could 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over the same July directive, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded.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…

COVID-19 Summary: This is a lawsuit brought by the University of California regents regarding the July 2020 release of ICE regulations which, in effect, meant that students on F-1 visas could 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over the same July directive, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded.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. The universities in this case later voluntarily dismissed their claims.


Background

Generally speaking, F-1 visas (colloquially "student visas") can be granted to international students who attend American universities. However, student visas have regulations that 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, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the defendant in this case, 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 meant that international students at schools that planned to conduct classes fully online would have to either transfer to another school that was at least partially in-person, return to their countries voluntarily, or risk deportation. The directive also ordered schools that had either transitioned fully online or decided not to have classes at all to submit an "operational change plan" within nine days. It also ordered schools with hybrid systems to certify each F-1 student to ensure that they were not taking entirely online courses.

The Lawsuit

Twenty public and private universities filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The universities, represented by private counsel, sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE. The universities alleged that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in two ways. First, the directive was arbitrary and capricious because it was not based in reasoned decision-making. Second, the directive was arbitrary and capricious because the supposed reasons behind it were only pretextual. The universities requested that the court grant declaratory relief calling the directive illegal. They also requested injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction that would prohibit the government from enforcing the new directive. They also asked that the court vacate and set aside the directive altogether. Finally, they requested reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

That same day, the universities also submitted a motion for summary judgment which largely followed the same arguments as the original complaint, and a motion to accelerate or expedite briefing and discovery.

On July 14, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai. Judge Kasubhai referred the motion for a temporary restraining order to Judge Michael J. McShane.

Meanwhile, in a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same directive, President and Fellows of Harvard College, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the July 6 directive rescinded. Therefore, on July 15, Judge Kasubhai asked the parties in this case to confer to discuss how to proceed with the case.

On July 17, the parties jointly filed a status report. In order to effectuate the rescission of the July 6 directive, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance. The universities withdrew, without prejudice, the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the motion for summary judgment, and the motion to expedite or accelerate litigation.

After further discussions in light of concerns about student confusion over the current status of the regulations, ICE agreed to issue new guidance and information on its website providing clarification that the original guidance from March is once again in effect. The universities reserved concerns that the new guidance might allow ICE to prevent individuals with valid student visas from entering the country if they are new students and intend to take only online courses during the fall semester.

The universities filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on August 26, 2020.

Summary Authors

Jack Hibbard (7/15/2020)

Chandler Hart-McGonigle (11/28/2020)

Related Cases

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, District of Massachusetts (2020)

State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Northern District of California (2020)

State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Western District of Washington (2020)

Johns Hopkins University v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, District of District of Columbia (2020)

Z.W. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Central District of California (2020)

The Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Northern District of California (2020)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Homeland Security, District of Massachusetts (2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17345093/parties/university-of-oregon-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Conti, Patrick J. (Oregon)

Dettmer, Ethan D. (California)

Evangelis, Theane (California)

Fong, Oliver Joe (New York)

Gose, Rebecca (Oregon)

Attorney for Defendant

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:20-cv-01127

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 27, 2020

Aug. 27, 2020

Docket
22

6:20-cv-01127

Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Briefing and Discovery

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
12

6:20-cv-01127

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

6:20-cv-01127

Complaint

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Complaint
2

6:20-cv-01127

Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17345093/university-of-oregon-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/

Last updated Dec. 16, 2024, 10:50 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Oregon

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 13, 2020

Closing Date: Aug. 27, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

U. of Utah, Claremont McKenna College, U. of San Francisco, Scripps College, Arizona State U., Pomona College, U. of Arizona, U. of Oregon, Northern Arizona U., Seattle U., U. of the Pacific, Saint Mary's College of California, Stanford U., Oregon State U., California Institute of Technology, Chapman U., Pitzer College, President and Board of Trustees of Santa Clara College, U. of San Diego, U. of Southern California

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit religious organization

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):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted

Issues

General/Misc.:

School/University Facilities

School/University policies

COVID-19:

Mitigation Denied

Mitigation Requested

Release Denied

Release Requested

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Admission - procedure

Deportation - criteria

Deportation - procedure

Visas - criteria

Visas - procedures