Amadei v. Nielsen
348 F. Supp. 3d 145
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- On Feb. 22, 2017, nine named plaintiffs on Delta Flight 1583 (SFO→JFK) were required by two CBP officers to present identification before deplaning; plaintiffs allege this was a nonconsensual search and seizure without warrant or individualized suspicion.
- CBP and DHS spokespeople publicly described the action as assisting ICE to locate an individual and characterized such identification checks as "routine," "not a new policy," or done "every day;" Defendant Russo wrote in emails that CBP "do[es] this every day."
- Plaintiffs allege CBP acted pursuant to a policy or routine practice (citing CBP statements and 19 C.F.R. § 162.6) and bring (1) a Fourth Amendment claim and (2) an APA challenge to the policy, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against suspicionless identification checks of passengers on domestic flights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief and that there was no final agency action for APA review; defendants also submitted a Russo declaration denying a formal policy.
- The Court treated the motion as a facial 12(b)(1) challenge, found Russo’s declaration conclusory and not creditable at this stage given CBP’s own public statements, and denied the motion to dismiss as to the APA claim and standing for declaratory/injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for declaratory/injunctive relief | Plaintiffs (frequent domestic travelers) allege they were searched once under a routine, policy-based practice and face a substantial risk of recurrence | Plaintiffs lack imminent injury: only one past search; no concrete plans to fly; no formal policy so future searches are speculative | Court: plaintiffs plausibly alleged injury-in-fact (substantial risk of repetition) given CBP statements that checks are "routine" and plaintiffs’ frequent travel; causation and redressability satisfied; standing exists |
| Final agency action under APA (5 U.S.C. § 704) | CBP public statements and Russo emails admit a routine policy/practice and point to CBP authority; this constitutes agency action that consummated decisionmaking and imposed legal consequences | No official written policy and agency disclaimers mean there is no final agency action subject to APA review | Court: at the pleading stage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged final agency action based on CBP/DHS statements and practical effect of the conduct; APA claim survives |
| Use/weight of Russo declaration submitted by defendants | N/A (plaintiffs rely on Russo emails and CBP public statements) | Russo declaration denies existence of policy/practice and attempts to controvert complaint allegations | Court: Russo declaration is conclusory and contradicted by Plaintiffs’ cited emails and public statements; cannot defeat facial 12(b)(1) motion here |
| Applicability of Lyons/other standing precedents | Plaintiffs argue Lyons is distinguishable because here a policy/routine practice is alleged, plaintiffs are frequent travelers, and no unlawful conduct by plaintiffs is required to trigger searches | Defendants rely on Lyons to argue speculative future injury and lack of formal policy make injunction inappropriate | Court: distinguishes Lyons (no formal policy there) and finds plaintiffs’ allegations of routine policy and frequent travel make Lyons inapposite; standing upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (prospective relief requires substantial likelihood of future harm; lack of policy undermined standing)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (two-part test for final agency action under APA)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; draw inferences for plaintiffs at motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir.) (repeated policy/practice can support standing for prospective relief)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (distinguishing standards for imminence; substantial-risk formulation)