La Clinica De La Raza v. Trump

• Decision Date: 07 August 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH
• Parties: LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

477 F.Supp.3d 951

LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA, et al., Plaintiffs,

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

Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed August 7, 2020

Alvaro Moises Huerta, Linton Joaquin, Mayra Beatriz Joachin, Nicholas David Espiritu, National Immigration Law Center, Antionette Deshun Dozier, David Michael Kane, Robert Dexter Newman, Jr., Western Center on Law and Poverty, Laboni Amena Hoq, Michelle Young Cho, Yanin Senachai, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Los Angeles, CA, Joanna Elise Cuevas Ingram, National Immigration Law Center, Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Lee Herrera, Pro Hac Vice, National Immigration Law Center, Chicago, IL, Martha Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Inc., Carrboro, NC, Max Samuel Wolson, Pro Hac Vice, National Immigration Law Center, Washington, DC, Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law Center, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs La Clinica De La Raza, California Primary Care Association, Child, Council on American Islamic Relations-California, African Communities Together, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Central American Resource Center, Korean Resource Center.

Alvaro Moises Huerta, Linton Joaquin, Mayra Beatriz Joachin, Nicholas David Espiritu, National Immigration Law Center, Antionette Deshun Dozier, David Michael Kane, Robert Dexter Newman, Jr., Western Center on Law and Poverty, Laboni Amena Hoq, Michelle Young Cho, Yanin Senachai, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin Lee Herrera, Pro Hac Vice, National Immigration Law Center, Chicago, IL, Martha Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Inc., Carrboro, NC, Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law Center, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff Farmworker Justice.

Joshua Michael Kolsky, Eric Joseph Soskin, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli.

Joshua Michael Kolsky, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant Chad F. Wolf.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 166

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge Before the court is defendants Donald J. Trump, 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.

BACKGROUND

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). 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: La Clinica de la Raza, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, wherein the La Clínica De La Raza and California Primary Care Association (the two together are the "healthcare organizations"), Maternal and Child Health Access, Farmworker Justice, Council on American Islamic Relations–California, African Communities Together, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Central American Resource Center, and Korean Resource Center (the "legal organizations" and, together with the healthcare organizations, the "organizational plaintiffs" or "plaintiffs") filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") asserting eight causes of action: (1) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Contrary to Law; (2) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Arbitrary and Capricious; (3) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 — Arbitrary and Capricious; (4) Violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 —Arbitrary and Capricious; (5) Violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act ("FVRA"), 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq., and DHS Organic Statute, 6 U.S.C. § 113 ; (6) Violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. ; (7) Violation of the Fifth Amendment; and (8) Declaratory Judgment Act—Unlawfully Appointed Agency Director. Dkt. 161.

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. 131 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. Most recently, the district court for the Southern District of New York enjoined the Rule as long as the government has declared a public health emergency related to COVID-19. See New York v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 475 F. Supp. 3d 208, 231, Nos. 19 Civ. 7777 (GBD), 19 Civ. 7993 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 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. 131 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 seeking to be lawfully admitted into the United States or to become lawful permanent residents prove they are not inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1225(a). A noncitizen may be deemed inadmissible on any number of grounds, including that they are "likely at any time to become a public charge." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). The statute directs immigration officials to form an opinion as to whether the applicant "is likely at any time to become a public charge." Id. In forming that opinion, immigration officers must consider "at a minimum" five statutorily-defined factors: (1) age; (2) health; (3) family status; (4) assets, resources, and financial status; (5) education and skills. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(B)(i). The Rule would define the term "public charge" and set out various criteria for government officials as part of their totality of the circumstances determination.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

1. Rule 12(b)(1)

A federal court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Rule 12(h)(3) similarly provides that a court "must dismiss the action" if it "determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction "rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (citations omitted).

A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When the attack is facial, the court determines whether the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Where the attack is factual, however, "the court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations." Id.

When resolving a factual dispute about its federal subject matter jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the complaint without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a court "may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction"); see also Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947) ("[W]hen a question of the District Court's jurisdiction is raised ... the court may inquire by affidavits or otherwise, into the facts as they exist."). "Once the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction." Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039.

The Ninth Circuit has noted that "jurisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question jurisdiction are exceptional, and must satisfy the requirements specified in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946)." Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Sun Valley Gas., Inc. v. Ernst Enters., 711 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1983) ). "In Bell, the Supreme Court determined that...