Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

• Decision Date: 05 March 2018
• Docket Number: Civil No. RWT–17–2942
• Parties: CASA DE MARYLAND, et al., Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

284 F.Supp.3d 758

CASA DE MARYLAND, et al., Plaintiffs

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants

Civil No. RWT–17–2942

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed March 5, 2018

Dennis A. Corkery, Matthew Keith Handley, Washington Lawyers Cmte for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, John Arak Freedman, Nancy Perkins, Ronald A. Schechter, Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Ajmel Quereshi, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Elizabeth J. Bower, Kevin B. Clark, Priya R. Aiyar, Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Brett Shumate, Kathryn C. Davis, Rachael Westmoreland, US DOJ, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROGER W. TITUS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint seeking to enjoin rescission of a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA"), asserting a variety of claims as to why the rescission was unlawful. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs are a number of individual participants in that program known as "Dreamers," as well as a series of special interest organizations that deal with immigration policy issues and work directly with immigrants in the community. Id. at 11–21. Defendants are President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and a series of government agencies—the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP")—as well as each agency's acting leader (secretary, director, or commissioner). Defendants collectively will be referred to as the "Government." Each individual defendant is being sued in his or her official capacity. Id. at 21–22.

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges a number of causes of action—both administrative and constitutional—which they believe are proper grounds for relief. Plaintiffs assert that rescission of the DACA program was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") both (1) as an arbitrary and capricious decision and (2) for failure to follow notice-and-comment procedures. Id. at 54–58. Plaintiffs further allege that the DACA rescission was a violation of the Fifth Amendment on the grounds of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection. Id. at 49–54. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on the basis of equitable estoppel both as to the DACA rescission itself and its information sharing policy. Id. at 58–59. Lastly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the DACA program is lawful. Id. at 59–60.

On November 1, 2017, the Court held an in-person status conference in order to resolve the scheduling and logistical issues of this case. ECF No. 19. Thereafter on November 15, 2017, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 27. On November 28, 2017, Plaintiffs responded in opposition, ECF No. 29, and on December 5, 2017, the Government replied in support of its Motion, ECF No. 30. The Court issued an Order on December 11, 2017 giving notice to the parties in accordance with Rule 56(f) that it may grant summary judgment for the non-moving party. See ECF No. 31. On December 15, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion. ECF No. 34.

I. BACKGROUND

"Can we all get along?"—Rodney King¹

In recent years, many Americans have found themselves sharing Mr. King's sentiment. This Court previously noted, albeit in the context of congressional gerrymandering, that "[n]ever before has the United States seen such deep political divisions as exist today, and while the courts are struggling in their efforts to find a standard [for the adjudication of gerrymandering claims], the fires of excessive partisanship are burning and our national government is encountering deadlock as never before." Fletcher v. Lamone , 831 F.Supp.2d 887, 905 (D. Md. 2011) (Titus, J., concurring), aff'd , 567 U.S. 930, 133 S.Ct. 29, 183 L.Ed.2d 671 (2012). Unfortunately, that 2011 observation still holds true today—perhaps even more so.

This case is yet another example of the damaging fallout that results from excessive political partisanship. The highly politicized debate surrounding the DACA program has thus far produced only rancor and accusations. During the recent debate over the rescission of DACA, the program even turned into a bargaining chip that resulted in a brief shutdown of the entire federal government earlier this year.² In order to adequately resolve the legal issues of this case, it is important to step back from the heated rhetoric and understand the context under which DACA was promulgated and rescinded.

The Dream Act—a Lengthy History of Failed Legislation

The Constitution reserves the power to enact immigration policy to the legislative branch. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ("[T]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization"). However, the "supervision of the admission of aliens into the United States may be intrusted by [C]ongress" to the executive branch. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States , 142 U.S. 651, 659, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146 (1892). For over a decade at the start of the 21^st century, Congress quarreled over policies regarding illegal aliens who entered the country as children, and who may have no memory or connection with their country of origin. Would the world's beacon of freedom—a nation founded by immigrants—cast out an immigrant population that was likely brought here without choice and who likely now knows no other home? While "no" would seem to be the obvious answer, ordinary logic has eluded our Congress.

"Dreamers" are neither constitutionally nor statutorily defined. Rather, the concept of protection for "Dreamers" arises from repeated congressional failures to act, and presidential action taken in their wake. A series of congressional sessions marked by bitter strife and inaction left the country without any protections for persons brought here illegally as children. The first attempt at a Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors ("DREAM") Act came in 2001, and although it took on many names in subsequent years, the repeated attempts to pass this legislation were filibustered, abandoned, or defeated on the floor.³ As illustrated by the frequency of bills proposed, Dreamer legislation reached its zenith during late 2010 in the 111^th Session of Congress. On December 8, 2010, the House of Representatives actually passed the DREAM Act.⁴ However, like all other iterations of this controversial legislation, its fate was doomed—this time, less than two weeks later on the Senate floor.⁵

DACA—an Act of Desperation Born of Frustration with a Paralyzed Congress

President Obama's administration, faced with the reality that Congress could do little more than squabble regarding the Dreamers, decided to take action on its own. On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum promulgating by executive action what is now known as DACA ("DACA Memo").⁶ DACA protections were afforded to the same class of immigrants foreseen by the various failed iterations of Dreamer legislation. The primary qualifications for DACA protections were that an individual must (1) have come to the U.S. before the age of sixteen, (2) meet various education or military service requirements, (3) not have a criminal record, and (4) register prior to the age of thirty.⁷

DACA was issued under a theory of "prosecutorial discretion" and "deferred action" and essentially permitted otherwise illegal aliens to remain in the United States without fear of deportation.⁸ While some heralded DACA as a victory, others decried it as executive overreach—usurping the powers of Congress to promulgate immigration policy.⁹ Over the course of the next five years, approximately 800,000 Dreamers registered for DACA protections.

Phase II: DAPA

Soon thereafter, the executive branch sought to expand its use of deferred action beyond the Dreamers. On November 20, 2014, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Charles Johnson, issued a pair of memoranda in an attempt to promulgate what is now known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans ("DAPA"), as well as a series of minor expansions for DACA.¹⁰

Less than a month later, DAPA was met with a legal challenge when Texas and twenty-five other states sued to enjoin implementation of the program. See generally Texas v. United States , 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015). In that case, DAPA was struck down by the district court, see id. , and a divided Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the decision, see 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). In June 2016, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the decision. See United States v. Texas , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2271, 2272, 195 L.Ed.2d 638 (2016). In addition to finding DAPA and the expansions of DACA unlawful, the judicial decisions throughout the DAPA litigation illustrate two key realities: (1) challenges to DAPA or analogous immigration programs promulgated by DHS without approval by Congress are justiciable; and (2) reasonable legal minds may differ regarding their lawfulness.

Aside from the classes of immigrants to which each applies, DACA and DAPA are largely similar programs addressing different classes or subcategories of immigrants. While DACA affects a population of approximately 800,000 otherwise illegal aliens, DAPA would have affected nearly half of the 11,000,000 immigrants currently in the United States unlawfully. See Texas v. United States , 787 F.3d 733, 745 (5th Cir. 2015). DAPA was challenged and defeated before the program was ever successfully promulgated, while DACA has run for approximately half of a decade before the threat of any litigation.

A Change in Administration and a Corresponding Change in Immigration Philosophy

The 2016 presidential election brought a change in leadership of the executive branch and, with it, significant changes in immigration views and philosophies.¹¹ In June of 2017, and with the defeat of DAPA directly in the rear-view mirror, Texas and other state plainti...