Jump to content

Wolf v. Vidal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kstone999 (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 29 September 2019 (v2.02 - Fixing innerlinks / WP:WCW project (Link equal to linktext)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
Full case nameMartín Jonathan Batalla Vidal et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. State of New York et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al., Defendants.
DecidedFebruary 13, 2018
Counsel for plaintiffNational Immigration Law Center, Make the Road New York, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (LSO) of Yale Law School
Citation291 F.Supp.3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
Case history
Subsequent actionGovernment has appealed the decision to the Second Circuit of Appeals
Holding
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Granted
Court membership
Judge sittingNicholas G. Garaufis

Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, 291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), is one of several cases that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filing the case

On August 25, 2016, Martin Batalla Vidal, a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York challenged the injunction issued by the Southern District of Texas in United States v. Texas to block the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and an expansion of DACA.

On September 29, 2016, Make the Road New York (MRNY) joined the lawsuit.

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the termination of the DACA program on September 5, 2017, Plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint to also challenge the decision to rescind DACA.[1] Plaintiffs claimed that the Government failed to provide an explanation for the reversal of DACA, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs also argued that the Trump Administration's reversal is "unconstitutionally motivated by anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus, in violation of equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."[2]

Decision

On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that while the government has the authority to end the DACA program, the government did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program.[3] The court found that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious because:

  1. The decision to end the DACA program rests exclusively on an erroneous legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration Nationality Act.
  2. The above erroneous legal conclusion relies on the incorrect factual premise that courts have recognized "constitutional defects" in the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAPA") program (Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) affirmed by an equally divided Court in United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016)).
  3. The government's decision is internally contradictory because the means the government chose to "wind-down" the program (by continuing to adjudicate DACA renewal applications) cannot be reconciled with their stated rationale for ending the program (that DACA was unconstitutional).[4]

Reasoning

The Stated Rationale for Rescinding DACA Appears to be Arbitrary and Capricious

1. The Decision Relies on the Legally Erroneous Premise that DACA is Illegal

The DACA Rescission Memo indicates that Defendants decided to end the DACA program because they believed it was illegal. Defendants point to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' letter which stated that DACA was unlawful and unconstitutional.[4] The court found that the Attorney General erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional. The court explained that DACA is not unconstitutional just because a unilateral, executive action implemented the program. The Executive Branch has wide discretion not to initiate or pursue specific enforcement actions. It is within the Executive Branch's discretion to identify a certain category of removable aliens as eligible for favorable treatment in order to better use the Department of Homeland Security's limited enforcement resources.[4]

Defendants also argued that DACA is likely to be invalidated in court because it "has the same legal and constitutional defects that the court recognized as to DAPA."[4] The Southern District of Texas enjoined DAPA because it was not promulgated through notice-and-comment rule-making and it was found to be substantively arbitrary and capricious because it conflicted with the Immigration Nationality Act (INA). Here, the court found that unlike DAPA, DACA was not a legislative rule that was subject to notice-and-comment rule-making. DACA is a policy statement and not a substantive rule because all DACA applications are adjudicated on an individualized basis and DHS retains discretion to deny or revoke deferred action or work authorization. The court concluded that DACA is now lawful and not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the INA.[4]

2. The Decision Relies on a Factually Erroneous Premise that Courts Have Determined that DACA is Unconstitutional

Defendants argued that per United States v. Texas, the Southern District of Texas and Fifth Circuit have recognized constitutional defects in DAPA, therefore, DACA is also unconstitutional. The court found that neither the Southern District of Texas nor the Fifth Circuit "recognized" any "constitutional defects" in the DAPA policy, and Defendants' reliance on that erroneous factual premise was arbitrary and capricious.[4]

3. The Decision's Rational is Internally Contradictory

The court found that if the DACA program was unconstitutional, then it makes no sense for Defendants to continue to violate the Constitution and conduct a "wind-down" of the program. Defendants' plan to continue to adjudicate DACA renewal requests renders their decision arbitrary and capricious.[4]

Defendants' Alternative Grounds for Upholding the DACA Rescission are Unpersuasive

1. The DACA Rescission Cannot be Sustained on the Basis of Defendants' "Litigation Risk" Argument.

The only basis for Defendants' "litigation risk" argument is the Attorney General's statement that DACA litigation would yield similar results as DAPA. The court found that this reasoning is too thin to support the "litigation risk" argument.

2. The Court Cannot Construe This Decision as an "Independent Policy Judgment"

The court found that the record offers no support for Defendants' argument that their decision to rescind DACA was based on a "policy judgment." A court "may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given."[4]

Irreparable Harm

The court found that if DACA recipients lose their deferred action, they will also lose their work authorization and therefore be legally unemployable in the United States and some may lose their employer-sponsored healthcare coverage. This will endanger families and impose burdens on the State Plaintiffs' public health systems. A DACA rescission will result in "staggering" adverse economic impacts of about $215 billion in lost GDP and $797 million in lost state and local tax revenue.[4]

Balancing the Equities and the Public Interest

The court found that the balance of the equities favored in granting an injunction. Because Defendants erroneously concluded that the program was unconstitutional and unlawful, enjoining Defendants from rescinding the DACA program on erroneous legal grounds does not intrude on their discretion to set immigration-enforcement policies. The court also found that the Government's interest in ending the DACA program is not compelling. The court pointed to President Trump's statements of support for keeping DACA recipients in the country and to statements by the DHS Secretary that DACA recipients are not a priority for immigration enforcement.[4]

Scope of Relief

The court ordered Defendants to continue to adjudicate DACA renewal requests on a case-by-case, individualized basis. The court declined to order Defendants to consider applications by individuals who have never before obtained DACA benefits because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that those individuals would be irreparably harmed without injunctive relief or that the balance of equities favors these individuals to the same extent it favors existing DACA beneficiaries.[4]

The court enjoined the rescission of the DACA program on a nationwide basis to adequately protect Plaintiff's interests and to achieve uniformity of federal immigration law.[4]

Subsequent Actions

The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On November 5, 2018, the government filed a petition for "cert. before judgment," asking the Supreme Court to hear the case without waiting for the Second Circuit's decision.[5]

Subsequent Treatment by Courts

In Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., the Ninth Circuit distinguished Batalla Vidal where the district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's substantive APA claim that alleged that Defendants arbitrary and capriciously changed DHSs's information-use policy. In Batalla Vidal, the court found that Plaintiffs' had relied on a document that contradicted "their otherwise-unsupported allegation of a change to DHS's information-use policy." The Ninth Circuit found that Regents of the Univ. of Cal. is different from Batalla Vidal because in Regents, the most recent FAQs [document] were not attached to or referenced in any of the complaints. . . "therefore. . . materials outside the complaint cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss."[6]

In Gondal v, United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., the Eastern District of New York found that plaintiffs do "not possess a liberty or property interest in a particular decision under DACA nor an employment authorization card." The court cited Batalla Vidal to explain that because the decision to grant deferred action and work authorization is discretionary, plaintiffs are not entitled to any additional interests that are contingent on that discretionary decision.[7]

In Saget v. Trump, the Eastern District of New York cited Batalla Vidal to support their finding that plaintiffs have plausible alleged that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor behind the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti. The court cited language in Batalla Vidal, where Judge Garaufis noted that "liability for discrimination will lie when a biased individual manipulates a non-biased decision-maker into taking discriminatory action."[8]

In 2019, the Southern District of New York held that Batalla Vidal "does not stand for the sweeping proposition that any organization with immigrant clients has standing to sue for violations of the [Immigration National Act] INA." The court found that in De Dandrade v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., the organizational plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under the APA or under the Constitution because organizational plaintiffs' interests are "so marginally related" to the purposes of the INA.[9]

Background

What is DACA?

On June 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[10] DACA provides young immigrants who meet specific criteria with protection from deportation and eligibility for work authorization for two years. Since 2012, about 800,000 people have been granted DACA.[11] On September 5, 2017, President Trump ordered an end to the DACA program and established a phasing out plan for DACA.[12] The termination of the DACA program resulted in various lawsuits challenging the termination.[13]

Lawsuits in Response to DACA Termination

New York

Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, 291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018): On February 13, 2018, the District Court granted motion for preliminary injunction ordering USCIS to accept DACA applications from people who have had DACA previously.[5]

NY v. Trump, et al.: Appeal in New York v. Trump has been consolidated with the appeal in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen.[5]

California

Regents of Univ. of California v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018), aff'd sub nom. Regents of the Univ. of California v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018): On November 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Northern District Court's nationwide injunction and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.[13]

See: Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Maryland

Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 284 F. Supp. 3d 758 (D. Md. 2018): The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided not to enjoin the termination of DACA. However, the court entered an injunction prohibiting the federal government from sharing DACA applications information with immigrant enforcement. The decision has been appealed and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to issue a decision soon.[14]

District of Columbia

Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump, 298 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.D.C. 2018), adhered to on denial of reconsideration, 315 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D.D.C. 2018): On August 17, 2018, the court partially stayed its order in ordering USCIS to accept to initial applications and advance parole. Now, USCIS only needs to accept renewal applications.[5]

Texas

State of Texas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, et al., Defendants., (S.D.Tex. 2018): The court denied plaintiff states' motion for a preliminary injunction because of the harm it would cause to DACA recipients.[5]

Suggested Further Readings

References

  1. ^ "Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen - Yale Law School". law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  2. ^ "Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". www.clearinghouse.net. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  3. ^ "Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". www.clearinghouse.net. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Garaufis, Nicholas G. (February 13, 2018). "Amended Memorandum & Order & Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). Retrieved March 9, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d e National Immigration Law Center (February 13, 2019). "Litigation Related to the DACA Program" (PDF). www.NILC.org. Retrieved March 9, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  6. ^ Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)
  7. ^ Gondal v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 343 F. Supp. 3d 83 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2018)
  8. ^ Saget v. Trump, 345 F. Supp. 3d 287 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018)
  9. ^ De Dandrade v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 17-cv-9604 (PKC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25249 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2019)
  10. ^ "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)". Department of Homeland Security. 2012-07-11. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
  11. ^ "Preparing for the Future: Understanding the Rights and Options of DACA Recipients | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC". www.ilrc.org. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
  12. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (2017-09-05). "Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
  13. ^ a b Penn State Law (January 23, 2019). "Litigation on DACA Rescission: What We Know" (PDF). Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic. Retrieved March 9, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ "DACA Litigation Timeline". National Immigration Law Center. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf_v._Vidal&oldid=918656168"