Casa De Md., Inc. v. Trump

• Decision Date: 14 October 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: PWG-19-2715
• Citation: 414 F.Supp.3d 760
• Parties: CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

414 F.Supp.3d 760

CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: PWG-19-2715

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

Signed October 14, 2019

Jonathan Lev Backer, Amy Marshak, Pro Hac Vice, Joshua Geltzer, Pro Hac Vice, Mary B. McCord, Pro Hac Vice, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Joshua Kolsky, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Paul W. Grimm, United States District Judge

This case arises out of a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") newly adopted immigration rule regarding "public charge" admissibility determinations, scheduled to take effect on October 15, 2019. Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA") (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A) ) authorizes the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to deny admission to the United States of anyone likely to be a "public charge." Congress first introduced this provision in the Immigration Act of 1882. DHS's new rule defines "public charge" as someone who immigration officials determine will likely receive 12 months of public benefits, including non-cash benefits, in a 36-month span at any point in their life. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 103, 212, 213, 214, 245, 248 (the "Public Charge Rule" or "Rule").

Plaintiffs Angel Aguiluz, Monica Camacho Perez (collectively, the "Individual Plaintiffs"), and CASA de Maryland, Inc. ("CASA") bring this action against Defendants Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs argue that the Public Charge Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pending before me is Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and to postpone the effective date of the Rule. ECF No. 28.

The issues have been fully briefed and a hearing was held on the motion.¹ For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motion is granted. DHS is enjoined from enforcing the Public Charge Rule and the effective date of the Rule is postponed on a nationwide basis during the pendency of this case.²

Background

The public charge admissibility provision first appeared in the Immigration Act of 1882. That Act denied admission to the United States of "any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any other person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." Act of Aug. 3, 1882, ch. 376, § 2, 22 Stat. 214, 214 ("1882 Act"). Between 1882 and the INA's enactment in 1952, the public charge admissibility ground continued to appear in U.S. Immigration statutes.³

During this time, the meaning of the term "public charge" was the subject of interpretation by federal courts, as well as Board of Immigration Appeals and Attorney General opinions. See discussion of cases in Part III, infra . For example, in a 1964 immigration opinion, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy summarized the history of cases interpreting the public charge admissibility provision, concluding that "[t]he general tenor of the holdings is that the statute requires more than a showing of a possibility that the alien will require public support" and that "[a] healthy person in the prime of life cannot ordinarily be considered likely to become a public charge." Matter of Martinez-Lopez , 10 I. & N. Dec. 409, 421–22 (AG 1964). Rather, to be a public charge, "[s]ome specific circumstance, such as mental or physical disability, advanced age, or other fact reasonably tending to show that the burden of supporting the alien is likely to be cast on the public, must be present." Id.

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 104-193, Title IV, 110 Stat. 2260 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ) (the "Welfare Reform Act."). The bill significantly limited the public benefits that non-Legal Permanent Residents and undocumented immigrants could receive. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611, 1621(a), (d), 1641(b). The Welfare Reform Act also included several policy statements, including, "Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country's earliest immigration statutes"; "[T]he immigration policy of the United States [is] that aliens within the Nation's borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs"; and "[T]he availability of public benefits [is] not [to] constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1601(1) - (2).

Later that year, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 531, 110 Stat. 3009, 3674–75 (1996) ("IIRIRA"). IIRIRA amended the public charge provision of the INA by codifying five factors that were relevant to public charge determinations: (1) age; (2) health; (3) family status; (4) assets, resources, and financial status; and (5) education and skills. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(B)(i). IIRIRA also authorized immigration officials to consider affidavits from sponsors that pledged financial support to the noncitizen if admitted. Id. § 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii).

In 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"), predecessor to USCIS, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and field guidance defining the term public charge. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds, 64 Fed. Reg. 28,676 (May 26, 1999) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 212 & 237) ("1999 Proposed Rule"); Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 Fed. Reg. 28,689 (Mar. 26, 1999) ("1999 Field Guidance"). The purpose of the 1999 Rulemaking and Field Guidance was to alleviate "considerable public confusion about whether the receipt of Federal, State, or local public benefits for which an alien may be eligible renders him or her a ‘public charge’ under the immigration statutes governing admissibility, adjustment of status, and deportation" following the passage of the Welfare Reform Act and IIRIRA. 1999 Proposed Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 28676. The 1999 Proposed Rule and Field Guidance defined the term "public charge" to mean "an alien who is likely to become primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence as demonstrated by either (i) The receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance purposes, or (ii) Institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense (other than imprisonment for conviction of a crime)." 1999 Proposed Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 28,681 ; 1999 Field Guidance, 64 Fed. Reg. at 28,689. INS adopted this definition "based on the plain meaning of the word ‘charge,’ the historical context of public dependency when the public charge immigration provisions were first enacted more than a century ago, and the expertise of the benefit-granting agencies that deal with subsistence issues." 1999 Proposed Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 28,677. INS also explained that the "primary dependent" definition was "consistent with factual situations presented in the public charge case law." Id. Although the 1999 Proposed Rule was never finalized, the 1999 Field Guidance has governed public charge admissibility determinations since that time.

In 2018, DHS initiated a proposed rulemaking to redefine the public charge admissibility standards. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,114 ("2018 Proposed Rule"). The 2018 Proposed Rule rescinded the 1999 Proposed Rule and Field Guidance and sought to redefine the term "public charge." In a 60-day span, DHS received 266,077 comments, "the vast majority of which opposed the rule." 84 Fed. Reg. at 41,297.

On August 14, 2019, DHS issued the final version of the Public Charge Rule. 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292. The Rule defines public charge as any noncitizen who is "more likely than not at any time in the future" to "receive[ ] one or more public benefits ... for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period." 84 Fed. Reg. at 41,501. The Rule significantly expands the public benefits that are included in this determination, including non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"), Medicaid, and housing assistance programs. Id. Multiple benefits received in one month count as receiving multiple months of benefits. Id. at 41,401. This determination is made based on a totality of the circumstances, and requires a USCIS officer to consider a list of factors that are "heavily weighted negative," "negative," "positive," and "heavily weighted positive." Id. at 41,397. As the basis for its change in position, DHS relies heavily on the policy statements included in the Welfare Reform Act. See, e.g. , id. at 41355–56 ("[A]lthough the INA does not mention self-sufficiency in the context of section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), DHS believes that there is a strong connection between the self-sufficiency policy statements elsewhere in Title 8 of the United States Code (even if not codified in the INA itself) at 8 U.S.C. 1601 and the public charge inadmissibility language in section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), which were enacted within a month of each other."); id. at 41,366 ("[T]he inclusion of the designated benefits into the public benefits definition, is consistent with congressional statements in 8 U.S.C. 1601 concerning self-sufficiency of foreign nationals.") The Rule is scheduled to take effect October 15, 2019.

Plaintiffs brought this challenge arguing that the Rule violates the APA because it is "not in accordance with the law ... [and] in excess of statutory ... authority" and is ...