619 F.Supp.3d 1029
S.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (certified class challenging CBP “Turnback Policy”) won summary judgment holding Defendants unlawfully withheld mandatory inspection and referral duties under 8 U.S.C. §1158/§1225, violating the APA and the Fifth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs sought class-wide injunctive relief enjoining turnbacks and compelling inspection/referral; parties agreed vacatur of two internal memoranda and some individual relief for named plaintiffs.
- After the MSJ decision, the Supreme Court decided Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, interpreting 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) to sharply limit lower courts’ authority to enter class-wide injunctions affecting the operation of removal statutes (including §1225).
- Defendants rescinded the PBQM and Metering Guidance memoranda (so nothing remains to vacate), and contend §1252(f)(1) bars any class-wide injunction here; Plaintiffs propose alternative bases for relief.
- The district court concluded Aleman Gonzalez overruled Ninth Circuit precedent (Ali, Rodriguez) protecting injunctions that correct unlawful agency conduct, and therefore held §1252(f)(1) bars a class-wide injunction in this case.
- The court nonetheless (1) ordered individual relief restoring status quo ante for named plaintiff Beatrice Doe and (2) entered a class-wide declaratory judgment that turning back noncitizens at Class A POEs (absent independent statutory authority) is unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(f)(1) bars class-wide injunctive relief enjoining Turnback Policy | §1252(f)(1) does not bar injunctions that stop unlawful agency conduct; rely on Ali/Rodriguez | §1252(f)(1) forbids class-wide injunctions that enjoin or restrain operation of §§1221–1332 (per Aleman Gonzalez) | Aleman Gonzalez controls; §1252(f)(1) bars a class-wide injunction here |
| Whether vacatur under the APA can substitute for an injunction | Vacatur is available to set aside unlawful agency guidance and remedy the policy | Vacatur is limited and rescinded memoranda mean no agency action remains to vacate | Court: vacatur is a distinct remedy but memoranda were rescinded so nothing to vacate now |
| Whether an injunction can be anchored in §1158 (or other statutes) to avoid §1252(f)(1) | Anchor injunction in §1158 (or §1103/6 U.S.C. §202) to sidestep §1252(f)(1) | Any injunction would still interfere with operation of §1225 (which §1158 incorporates) | Rejected: §1158 incorporates §1225, so anchoring cannot avoid §1252(f)(1) bar |
| Available relief (class vs individual) | Seek class-wide injunction, oversight, and declaratory relief | Agree to declaratory relief and some individual relief; oppose class injunction | Court denies class-wide injunction, grants class-wide declaratory judgment, and orders individualized relief for Beatrice Doe |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) (Supreme Court held §1252(f)(1) bars lower-court class-wide injunctions that interfere with operation of removal statutes)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ninth Circuit had allowed injunctions remedying unlawful operation rather than operation of detention statutes)
- Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2003) (similar Ninth Circuit precedent distinguishing injunctions of unlawful agency conduct from injunctions of statute operation)
- Gonzales v. Department of Homeland Security, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussed limits on §1252(f)(1) where injunctions target provisions outside covered part)
- Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2020) (Ninth Circuit recognizing §1158 creates a right to apply for asylum and §1225 imposes inspection/referral duties)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (deprivation of constitutional right constitutes irreparable injury)