Make the Roa NY v. McAleenan
Citation | 405 F.Supp.3d 1 |
Decision Date | 27 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 19-cv-2369 (KBJ),19-cv-2369 (KBJ) |
Parties | MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kevin MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Anand Balakrishnan, Lee Gelernt, Michael King Thomas Tan, Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Joshua Polster, Susannah Geltman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Celso Perez, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, NY, Kristin MacLeod-Ball, Trina Ann Realmuto, American Immigration Council, Brookline, MA, Stephen Bonggyun Kang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA, Arthur B. Spitzer, Scott Michelman, American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Karolina Joanna Walters, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Erez Reuveni, Archith Ramkumar, Kathryne Marie Gray, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...9
II. Background ...12
III. Procedural History ...21
IV. Motions For Preliminary Injunctions In Cases Challenging Agency Action ...22
V. Analysis ...––––24
VI. Conclusion ...72
I. INTRODUCTION
Administrative agencies have long been required by law to adhere to certain procedural standards when they evaluate options and assess alternatives with respect to the implementation of policy objectives. See, e.g. , 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) – (c) ( ). This is by design; statutory requirements that pertain to how an agency conducts its internal deliberations are intended to promote transparency and to prevent arbitrary decision making by unelected government officials. See Batterton v. Marshall , 648 F.2d 694, 703 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ; see also Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath , 339 U.S. 33, 40–41, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616 (1950), superseded by statute on other grounds (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. , was enacted to supplant unregulated rule making by independent commissions, and that one of the Act's "fundamental ... purpose[s]" was "to curtail and change the practice of embodying in one person or agency the duties of prosecutor and judge"). that the Thus, even when an agency has the authority to make a final policy decision, procedural mandates that constrain its decision making processes operate as safeguards of individual liberty, and therefore, are entirely consistent with foundational democratic and constitutional norms.
The instant case requires this Court to determine whether, inter alia , the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") unlawfully dispensed with core procedural prerequisites when it suddenly announced that the agency was designating undocumented non-citizens who have been in this country for up to two years, and who are located far beyond the border, as eligible for "expedited removal" from the United States.
Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 84 Fed. Reg. 35,409, 35,409 (July 23, 2019).1 Generally speaking, expedited removal is the statutory authorization that enables federal immigration officers to slate certain undocumented non-citizens for rapid deportation "without further hearing or review[.]" 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).
Prior to July 23, 2019, DHS had authorized expedited removal with respect to undocumented non-citizens who arrived in the United States by land only if such persons were encountered near the border and had been in the country for no longer than 14 days. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 35,409. In a "Notice" that DHS published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2019 (more than two and half years after President Donald Trump issued an executive order that demanded that DHS expand its established expedited removal practices), the agency instantly authorized line immigration-enforcement agents to apply expedited removal to non-citizens encountered anywhere in the United States for up to two years after the non-citizen arrived in the United States, effective immediately. See id. This abrupt change in the official policies that govern DHS's deportation practices is the subject of the legal claims that have been presented to the Court in this case.
Three immigrant-rights organizations—Make the Road New York, La Union Del Pueblo Entero ("LUPE"), and WeCount! (collectively, "Plaintiffs")—have filed the instant lawsuit against DHS, its Secretary, and other agency officials (collectively, "DHS" or "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DHS's July 23rd Notice violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), because the agency did not engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to issuing the July 23rd Notice, and also because DHS failed to take the established flaws in the preexisting expedited removal system into account before it reached the conclusion that the expedited removal process should be applied to a broader category of non-citizens. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 129–34, 149–51.)2
Before this Court at present is a motion for a preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs have filed "to prevent severe and irreparable harm" to their members while the parties litigate the myriad legal issues that this legal action raises. (Pls.' Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. () , ECF No. 13, at 2.)3 The array of legal issues that this Court must ultimately decide includes whether the APA even applies to the expedited-removal designations that the DHS Secretary makes under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I), and the parties have made various arguments that, at bottom, relate to that key question. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs contend that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over their APA challenges under the circumstances that are expressly addressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. , and that at least seven of their members have Article III standing to pursue the instant APA claims. Plaintiffs also assert that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that DHS has violated the APA, and that without a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy change announced in the July 23rd Notice, their members will suffer irreparable harm. Defendants respond that this Court cannot review Plaintiffs' claims consistent with its power under Article III, either because Congress intended to preclude the exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Secretary's expedited removal designations or because Plaintiffs lack standing and a cause of action to bring these kinds of claims. Defendants also maintain that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their contention that the July 23rd Notice was procedurally defective or otherwise violates the law.
For the reasons explained fully below, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED , and as a result, DHS will be PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the expedited removal expansion that the Acting DHS Secretary prescribed in the July 23rd Notice while the instant claims are being litigated, pending further order of this Court. In short, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish successfully that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under section 1331 of Title 28 of the United States Code ; that the INA's section 242 ( 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ) does not strip the federal courts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
...exercising certain rights outweighed the public interest in enforcing the law articulated by the government); Make the Road N.Y. v. McAleenan , 405 F. Supp. 3d 1, 65 (D.D.C. 2019) (concluding that the interest in administration of laws is outweighed by potential harm to individuals from err......
-
Kiakombua v. Wolf, No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ)
...its view that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, see Make the Rd. N.Y. v. McAleenan ("MTRNY I") , 405 F. Supp. 3d 1, 26–27 (D.D.C. 2019), aff'd in relevant part, MTRNY II , 962 F.3d at 624–25, and that section 1252 of Title 8 does not strip federa......
-
Newyork v. Wolf
...written policy directives, and written policy guidelines issued by the Secretary to implement expedited removal. See Make the Road , 405 F. Supp. 3d at 28 ("[T]his court has little doubt that [the Associations’] APA claims assailing DHS's July 23rd Notice qualify as challenges to ‘a regulat......
-
Texas v. Becerra
... ... performance standards, Congress conferred modest authority ... To “modify” means to “make somewhat ... different; to make small changes to (something) by way of ... improvement, suitability, or effectiveness ... [t]o make ... Nat'l Min. Ass'n v. U.S. Army Corps of ... Eng'rs , 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998); ... Make the Rd. New York v. McAleenan , 405 F.Supp.3d 1, ... 66-72 (D.D.C. 2019) (Jackson, J.), rev'd and remanded ... on other grounds , 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New ... ...
-
Judicial Review of Good Cause Determinations Under the Administrative Procedure Act.
...apply the standard. See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 848 F.3d 1129, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Make the Rd. N.Y. v. McAleenan, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1,45 (D.D.C. 2019); Nat'l Venture Capital Ass'n v. Duke, 291 F. Supp. 3d 5,15-16 (D.D.C. (133.) See Nat. Res. Def. Council, 894 F.3d at 113-14. (134.) ......
-
THE PATH OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REMEDIES.
...HOS.Ct. 1891 (2020); District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric, 444 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020); Make the Rd. N.Y. v. McAleenan, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1, 72 (D.D.C. 2019), rev'd and remanded sub num.. Make the Rd. N.Y. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020); City 8c Cnty. of San Francisco v. Se......
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
...Congress adopts to carry out those decisions." Id. (245.) Smith, supra note 7, at 1-2. (246.) See Make the Road N.Y. v. McAleenan, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 n.2 (D.D.C. 2019), rev'd sub nom. Make the Road N.Y. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. (247.) See id. at 25 n.12; Wolf, 962 F.3d at 621 n.2......
-
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: IMMIGRATION, RACISM, AND COVID-19.
...[https://perma.cc/FL99-NBAM]. (245) Id. (246) See, e.g., Make the Rd. N.Y. v. McAleenan, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1, 44 (D.D.C. 2019), rev'd sub nom. Make the Rd. N.Y. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that DHS had failed to engage in the required notice-and-comment rulemaking when exp......