California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
Decision Date | 03 August 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH |
Citation | 476 F.Supp.3d 994 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | State of CALIFORNIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. |
Cherokee Dawn-Marie Melton, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Brenda Ayon Verduzco, Julia Harumi Mass, Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Katherine M. Lehe, Anna Margaret Rich, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Lisa Janine Cisneros, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General - Civil Rights Enforcement, San Francisco, CA, William Hawthorne Downer, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, Alacoque Hinga Nevitt, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Alacoque Hinga Nevitt, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Valerie Maria Nannery, Washington, DC, Julia Harumi Mass, California Department of Justice California Department of Justice, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff District of Columbia.
Julia Harumi Mass, California Department of Justice California Department of Justice, Oakland, CA, Susan P. Herman, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, ME, for Plaintiff State of Maine.
Aimee Diane Thomson, Pro Hac Vice, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Impact Litigation Section, Philadelphia, PA, Julia Harumi Mass, California Department of Justice California Department of Justice, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Jeanne Nicole DeFever, Oregon Dept of Justice, Portland, OR, Julia Harumi Mass, California Department of Justice California Department of Justice, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff State of Oregon.
Joshua Michael Kolsky, Department of Justice, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary USDHS Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli.
Christina Maria Assi, Proskauer Rose LLP, Denny W. Chan, Pro Hac Vice, Los Angeles, CA, Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Pro Hac Vice, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, Natalie Elise Kean, Pro Hac Vice, Owen Masters, Pro Hac Vice, Proskauer Rose LLP, Regan M. Bailey, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Defendants Justice in Aging, American Society on Aging, Caring Across Generations, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, The National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, National Council on Aging, National Hispanic Council on Aging, MAZON, PHI.
Nicholas A. Reider, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Sarah Meyers Ray, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Disability Rights Advocates.
Edward Todd Waters, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher John Frisina, Phillip Anselm Escoriaza, Pro Hac Vice, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell, LLP, Washington, DC, Kathryn Ellen Doi, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant Deans, Chairs, and Scholars.
Emily Tomoko Kuwahara, Crowell and Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Asian Pacific Development Center, Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, Anti-Defamation League, Apna Ghar, Inc., Asian American Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Asian & Latino Solidarity Alliance of Central Virginia, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center, Asian Pacific Community in Action, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley School of Law, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Chinese-American Planning Council, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Coalition on Human Needs, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR), Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, EMBARC, End Rape on Campus, Equal Rights Advocates, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Girls Inc., GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), If When How Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, In Our Own Voice National Black Womens Reproductive Justice Agenda, In the Public Interest, Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, MinKwon Center for Community Action, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National CAPACD), National Crittenton, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project, National Partnership for Women & Families, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, OneAmerica, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Connection, Reproductive Health Access Project, Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Transgender Law Center, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of Reform Judaism, and Men of Reform Judaism, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, Women's Law Center of Maryland, Women Lawyers on Guard Inc.
Emily Tomoko Kuwahara, Crowell and Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Sadik Harry Huseny, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Oasis Legal Services.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge Before the court is defendants the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS"), Chad Wolf,1 and Kenneth Cuccinelli's (collectively "defendants") motion to dismiss. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.
This case involves a challenge to the implementation of the final rule entitled "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," published by DHS on August 14, 2019. See Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019) ("the Rule"). On October 10, 2018, DHS began the rulemaking process to create a new framework for the public charge assessment by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM"). See Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,114 (Oct. 10, 2018). On August 14, 2019, DHS published the Rule in the Federal Register. Id. at 41,292. The Rule was originally set to become effective on October 15, 2019.
Publication of the Rule resulted in several complaints filed in federal district courts across the nation. Three such complaints were filed in the Northern District of California and related before this court. Dkt. 24. The present motion involves one of the three cases: State of California, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH, wherein the States of California, Maine, and Oregon, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia (the or "plaintiffs") filed a complaint ("Compl.") asserting six causes of action: (1) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Contrary to Law, the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA"); (2) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Contrary to Law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the "Rehabilitation Act"); (3) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Contrary to Law, State Healthcare Discretion; (4) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Arbitrary and Capricious; (5) Violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause requiring Equal Protection based on race; (6) Violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause, based on a violation of Equal Protection principles based on unconstitutional animus. Dkt. 1.
On October 11, 2019, this court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from applying the Rule to any person residing in the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County, the States of California, Oregon, or Maine, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the District of Columbia. Dkt. 120 at 92. Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction on October 30, 2019. Dkt. 129. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction on December 5, 2019.2 Dkt. 141; see City & Cty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2019). On February 18, 2020, the Ninth Circuit panel voted to deny plaintiffs-appellees’ motions for reconsideration and for rehearing en banc. Dkt. 153. Other district courts also issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting enforcement of the Rule, but these were ultimately stayed by the Supreme Court. See Dep't of Homeland Security v. New York, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 599, 206 L.Ed.2d 115 (2020) ; Wolf v. Cook Cty., Illinois, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 681, 206 L.Ed.2d 142 (2020). Accordingly, the Rule went into effect on February 24, 2020.
A broader summary of the relevant statutory framework and the changes implemented by the Rule may be found in the court's preliminary injunction order. Dkt. 120 at 6–10. To briefly summarize here, DHS promulgated the Rule pursuant to its authority under the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., which requires that all noncitizens...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Machic-Xiap
...extend to those persons, even if their presence is ‘unlawful, involuntary, or transitory,’ " California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 476 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Mathews , 426 U.S. at 77, 96 S.Ct. 1883 ). The Government cites several cases suggesting that the Cour......
-
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez
...Supp. 3d ––––, ––––, Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, 2020 WL 6940934, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020) ; California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 476 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1022-23 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ; Cook Cnty., Illinois v. Wolf , 461 F. Supp. 3d 779, 788-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ; CASA de Maryland, Inc.......
-
Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Hailey
...Federal Courts may only interpret actual "Cases" or "Controversies" under U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 476 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The Supreme Court has provided three elements a plaintiff must prove to establish standing: (1) "The p......
-
Byrd v. Little
...Jurisdiction Any action which lack subject matter jurisdiction may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 476 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2020). In assessing whether Byrd's complaint is within the Court's jurisdiction, the Court considers the "well......
-
Article II judges: section 238's violation of separation of powers
...delegation of this power to the Executive, even in the face of First Amendment concerns); California v. U.S. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., 476 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1018–21 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (detailing history of the plenary power doctrine). But see Tineo v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 200, 217 (3d Cir. 2019......