Case: Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli

1:19-cv-07993 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Aug. 27, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case challenging the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “public charge” rule (“the Rule”). On August 27, 2019, the plaintiffs Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The plaintiffs sued…

This is a case challenging the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “public charge” rule (“the Rule”). On August 27, 2019, the plaintiffs Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment that DHS’s rule was unauthorized by law and unconstitutional and asked that the court vacate the Rule. The plaintiffs also sought both preliminary and permanent injunctions to block implementation or enforcement of the Rule.

The Rule implemented a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), barring admission and lawful permanent residence to any noncitizen who immigration officials concluded was “likely to become a public charge.” DHS’s proposed rule would have narrowed a provision of the INA by reinterpreting the term “public charge,” and would have provided a new framework for assessing whether a noncitizen is likely at any time to become a public charge. On September 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to enjoin DHS from implementing the new Rule.

Judge Daniels granted the plaintiffs' September 9 motion. The court accordingly issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on October 11, 2019, preventing the Rule from taking effect. 419 F.Supp.3d 647. In its opinion explaining this order, the district court devoted most of its analysis to the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the two APA claims. Still, it found that all of the plaintiffs’ claims–that is, both of their claims under the APA, their claim under the Rehabilitation Act, and their Fifth Amendment constitutional claim–could support the preliminary injunction. So with regard to each claim, the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, satisfied threshold requirements, and thus that a preliminary injunction was warranted. On November 29, 2019, DHS moved in the district court for a stay pending appeal to the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit. Judge Daniels, in light of his extant findings of the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, denied the motion. The court entered an order to this effect on December 2, 2019. DHS then appealed to the Second Circuit on December 31, 2019.

DHS moved in the Second Circuit for a stay pending their appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction, but the Second Circuit denied this motion on January 8, 2020. 2020 WL 95815. In its denial, the Second Circuit noted that it had expedited briefing and that “[a]s always, the merits panel as soon as constituted has full authority to consider the scope of the existing injunction.” Litigation continued in the district court: on February 14, 2020, DHS moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. And on March 3, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives filed an amicus brief opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DHS filed a motion with the Supreme Court on January 13, 2020, still seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court granted this request and accordingly stayed the preliminary injunction pending the Second Circuit’s disposition of the defendants’ appeal “and any subsequent petition for certiorari.” DHS then implemented the Rule, which took effect on February 24, 2020. On April 13, 2020, the plaintiffs moved the Supreme Court to temporarily lift or modify its stay of the district court’s nationwide injunction in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. But on April 24, 2020, the Supreme Court denied this motion.

The plaintiffs filed a new motion with the district court on April 28, 2020, requesting a preliminary injunction and stay—or a temporary restraining order—for the duration of the COVID-19 national emergency. In an order released July 29, 2020, Judge Daniels addressed both this request for a new injunction and the defendants’ February 14 motion to dismiss. He rejected the defendants’ assertion that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, as well as the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs could not meet the jurisdictional requirements of standing and ripeness. On the other hand, Judge Daniels granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction. He acknowledged the Supreme Court’s stay of the prior, October 2019 injunction, but explained that “[m]uch has significantly changed since January 27[, 2020.]” Accordingly, Judge Daniels found that the COVID-19 pandemic warranted temporary equitable relief and explained that such relief would take the form of a nationwide temporary injunction.

At this point in the litigation, the district court had granted two injunctions against the Rule: one on October 11, 2019 and the other on July 29, 2020. The Supreme Court had stayed the first of these injunctions but only pending appeal to the Second Circuit. Thus, the defendants appealed both injunctions to the Second Circuit. As to the first injunction, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that a preliminary injunction was warranted. The court focused on the arguments that the Rule was unlawful (1) because it was contrary to the INA and (2) because it was arbitrary and capricious. The court explained that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on both arguments, making preliminary relief appropriate. That said, the court modified the scope of the district court’s injunction to cover only the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. This opinion was released on August 4, 2020, followed by an administrative order implementing the opinion on August 12, 2020. 969 F.3d 42.

As to the second injunction issued on July 29, the district court made that decision upon finding that the COVID-19 pandemic heightened the need for a stay of the Rule. The Second Circuit concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter this second preliminary injunction while appeal of the district court’s first, virtually identical injunction was pending before the Second Circuit. Thus, on September 11, 2020, the Second Circuit granted the defendants’ motion to stay the second injunction.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 2, 2020. The defendants then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on October 7, 2020, challenging the Second Circuit’s August 4 affirmation of the district court’s injunction. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on February 22, 2021. But on March 9, 2021, DHS formally abandoned the Rule. That same day, at all parties' requests, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition from this case.

On February 24, 2022, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would potentially raise questions like those raised by the Rule. And later in 2022, DHS announced its intention to promulgate a new public charge rule. The plaintiffs have therefore moved for multiple extensions of the district court’s stay; the court has granted all of them thus far. The court most recently extended the stay until November 17, 2022, and required the parties to file a joint status letter by November 11, 2022.

Summary Authors

Hank Minor (9/23/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16115562/parties/make-the-road-new-york-v-cuccinelli/


Attorney for Plaintiff

Azmy, Baher (New York)

Beale, Elana Rose (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Berman, Keri Lane (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Bailey, Regan (New York)

Barbero, Megan (New York)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:19-cv-07993

Complaint

Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

Complaint
147

1:19-cv-07993

Memorandum Decision and Order

Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Order/Opinion

419 F.Supp.3d 647

On Application for Stay

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 27, 2020

Jan. 27, 2020

Order/Opinion

140 S.Ct. 599

189-1

1:19-cv-07993

Brief of United States House of Representatives as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss

March 20, 2020

March 20, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
221

1:19-cv-07993

Memorandum Decision and Order

July 29, 2020

July 29, 2020

Order/Opinion

475 F.Supp.3d 232

12-03591

19-03595

Opinion

State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Aug. 4, 2020

Aug. 4, 2020

Order/Opinion

969 F.3d 42

12-03591

19-03595

Opinion

State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

Order/Opinion

974 F.3d 210

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16115562/make-the-road-new-york-v-cuccinelli/

Last updated Dec. 20, 2024, 3:08 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 27, 2019

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network are public interest groups that work with immigrants to the United States.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit religious organization

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 (- United States (national) -), Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Order Duration: 2019 - 2022

Issues

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Immigration status

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Admission - procedure

Constitutional rights

Deportation - criteria

Deportation - procedure