Crane v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 07 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–10049.,14–10049. |
| Citation | 783 F.3d 244 |
| Parties | Christopher L. CRANE; David A. Engle; Anastasia Marie Carroll; Ricardo Diaz ; Lorenzo Garza; Felix Luciano; Tre Rebstock; Fernando Silva ; Samuel Martin; James D. Doebler; State Of Mississippi, by and through Governor Phil Bryant, Plaintiffs–Appellants Cross–Appellees v. Jeh Charles JOHNSON, Secretary, Department Of Homeland Security; John Sandweg, in his Official Capacity as Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Lori Scialabba, in her Official Capacity as Acting Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants–Appellees Cross–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Kris William Kobach, Esq. (argued), Kansas City, KS, Peter Michael Jung, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellant Cross–Appellee.
Jeffrey A. Clair, Esq. (argued), Adam David Kirschner, Michael Jay Singer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellee Cross–Appellant.
Lawrence John Joseph, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund.
Barnaby W. Zall, Esq., Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, L.L.P., Rockville, MD, for Amicus Curiae Immigration Reform Law Institute.
Nicolas Chavez, Esq., Chavez & Valko, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Melissa Ellen Crow, Director, Beth Werlin, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Marisa Bono, Mexican–American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX, Melissa Ellen Crow, Director, Beth Werlin, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, American Immigration Council.
Marisa Bono, Mexican–American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Melissa Ellen Crow, Director, Beth Werlin, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, Charles Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Justice Center.
Nicolas Chavez, Esq., Chavez & Valko, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Melissa Ellen Crow, Director, Beth Werlin, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, Marisa Bono, Mexican–American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX, for
Amici Curiae National Immigration Law Center, New York Legal Assistance Group, United We Dream Network.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before KING, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs–Appellants are several Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and deportation officers (collectively referred to as “Agents”) and the State of Mississippi. They filed this suit against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the directors of departments within that agency (collectively referred to as “DHS”), in their official capacities, challenging DHS's 2012 directive, which requires its officials to use “deferred action” as to a certain class of aliens in immigration removal proceedings. The Agents allege that exercising deferred action violates federal law, because the law requires them to detain all illegal aliens for the purpose of placing the aliens in removal proceedings. The State of Mississippi alleges that the deferred action has caused additional aliens to remain in the state and, thus, causes the state to spend money on providing social services. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that neither the Agents nor the State of Mississippi has demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give them standing to maintain this suit. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”1 The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., is the comprehensive statutory scheme governing immigration in the United States. It controls, among other things, the removal of illegal aliens found within the United States.2 Those “[a]liens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law.”3
Under the INA, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is “charged with the administration and enforcement of [the INA] and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens....”4 Although the Secretary of DHS is charged with enforcement of the INA, “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”5 In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that the concerns justifying criminal prosecutorial discretion are “greatly magnified in the deportation context.”6
Beginning in 2012, the Executive Branch implemented a program deferring action against the removal of what it considers low priority aliens. This class of low priority aliens are “certain young people who were brought to [the U.S.] as children and know only this country as home.”7 This is known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program outlined in former DHS Secretary Napolitano's directive, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” (“Napolitano Directive” or “the Directive”).8 As outlined in the Napolitano Directive, DACA permits, on a case-by-case basis, deferred action on the removal of undocumented aliens who: (1) arrived in the United States before the age of sixteen; (2) are under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; (3) have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; (4) are in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and (5) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.9 If an alien satisfies all of these criteria, then the alien may apply to have any removal proceeding deferred for a period of two years.10 The alien must pass a criminal background check, submit biometrics, file several forms, and pay a fee.11 Deferred action is granted on a case-by-case basis and DHS does not guarantee that relief will be granted in all cases.12
According to Section 1225 of the INA, when an immigration officer encounters an alien who is an “applicant for admission,” the officer must determine whether the alien is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.”13 An “applicant for admission” includes aliens present in the United States who have not been admitted.14 If the examining immigration official is not satisfied that the alien is entitled to be admitted, then the officer “shall” detain the alien for a removal proceeding.15 It is undisputed that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) only directs the Agents to detain an alien for the purpose of placing that alien in removal proceedings. It does not limit the authority of DHS to determine whether to pursue the removal of the immigrant.
DACA instructs DHS officials who come into contact with an undocumented alien who meets the program's criteria to “immediately exercise” prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, in order to uphold DHS's priority removal scheme.16 Once DHS awards the alien deferred action, the alien may apply for work authorization during the time period action is deferred.17
According to the Agents, even if the immigration official is not satisfied that the alien is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” DACA prohibits the agent from detaining eligible aliens for the purpose of commencing removal proceedings. The Agents read 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) as requiring them to detain all undocumented immigrants they come in contact with. They contend that if they follow the statute and decline to follow DACA they will be subject to employment sanctions. The Agents also allege that following DACA will cause them to violate their oath to support and defend the laws of the United States.
The State of Mississippi alleges that the beneficiaries of DACA who remain in the state will cost the state money in education, healthcare, law enforcement, and lost tax revenue. In support of this allegation, Mississippi points to a 2006 study conducted by Mississippi officials that estimates the net fiscal burden of illegal immigration as a whole at $25 million per year.
According to Plaintiffs' amended complaint, DHS began accepting DACA applications on August 15, 2012. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief eight days later, on August 23, 2012, facially attacking the constitutional and statutory validity of the DACA program. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the program violates:
(1) federal statutes requiring the initiation of removals; (2) federal law by conferring a non-statutory form of benefit—deferred action—to more than 1.7 million aliens, rather than a form of relief or benefit that federal law permits on such a large scale; (3) federal law by conferring the legal benefit of employment authorization without any statutory basis and under the false pretense of “prosecutorial discretion”; (4) the constitutional allocation of legislative power to Congress; (5) the Article II, Section 3, constitutional obligation of the executive to take care that the laws are faithfully executed; and (6) the Administrative Procedure Act through conferral of a benefit without regulatory implementation.
All of the causes of action, except the third, challenge the portion of DACA that requires the Agents to exercise prosecutorial discretion and refrain from detaining certain aliens. The third cause of action challenges the employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas v. Biden
...countenanced a far less obvious injury than this one. 549 U.S. at 522-23. Second, the Government resorts to Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015), where this court held Mississippi lacked standing to challenge the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") program. Id. at 252.......
-
N.C. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Becerra
... ... if any, of defendant's purportedly illegal acts caused ... plaintiff's expenses and costs. Cf. Crane v ... Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 252 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming ... district court's holding that state-plaintiff's ... “alleged ... ...
- Gulf Restoration Network v. McCarthy
-
Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
...must be concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ; see also Crane v. Johnson , 783 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to e......
-
Punishing with impunity: the legacy of risk classification assessment in immigration detention
...of DAPA and expansion of DACA), aff’d by an equally divided court , 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). 24. See, e.g. , Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015) (challenge to DACA by ICE officials); Julia Preston, Agents Sue over Deportation Suspensions , N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 23, 2012), https://perm......
-
Executive Discretion and First Amendment Constraints on the Deportation State
...litigation and commentary. See, e.g., Crane v. Napolitano, 920 F. Supp. 2d 724, 747 (N.D. Tex. 2013), aff'd sub nom., Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 255 (5th Cir. 2015) (dismissing action by ICE officers' union and State of Mississippi against the 2012 creation of DACA); United States v. T......
-
REGIONAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
...Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents challenging new immigration initiatives for lack of standing), aff'd sub nom, Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. (131.) Jason A. Cade, Enforcing Immigration Equity, 84 FORDHAM L. REV. 661, 693 n.204 (2015) (citing Julia Preston, Suit Previews......