Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 81 F. Supp. 3d 795

Background

In 2012 DHS created DACA, granting eligible "DREAMers" deferred action for two years and Employment Authorization Documents (EADs); DACA does not confer lawful status or a path to citizenship.
Arizona law (A.R.S. § 28-3153(D)) requires proof that an applicant’s presence is authorized under federal law to obtain a driver’s license; before DACA Arizona MVD accepted all EADs as proof of authorized presence.
After DACA, Arizona (ADOT/MVD) changed policy to refuse to accept (c)(33) EADs issued under DACA as proof of authorized presence; later it also excluded (c)(14) and (a)(11) categories while continuing to accept other EAD categories, including (c)(9) and (c)(10).
Plaintiffs (Arizona Dream Act Coalition and six DACA recipients) sued, claiming the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause; the Ninth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction and found plaintiffs likely to succeed on equal protection grounds (Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer).
On summary judgment the district court found DACA recipients similarly situated to other EAD holders (e.g., (c)(9), (c)(10), parolees) and held Arizona’s disparate treatment fails even the Ninth Circuit’s rigorous form of rational-basis review.
The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Arizona from refusing to accept DACA-issued EADs as proof of authorized presence for driver’s licenses and ID cards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DACA recipients are similarly situated to other EAD holders who may obtain licenses	DACA recipients, like (c)(9)/(c)(10) applicants and parolees, have federal authorization to remain and work and are similarly situated in relevant respects	DACA recipients differ because their authorization is discretionary (deferred action), not statutory, and thus are not similarly situated	Court: DACA recipients are similarly situated to other EAD holders in relevant respects and were treated disparately
Level of scrutiny applicable to the Equal Protection claim	Plaintiffs argued heightened scrutiny may apply but that policy fails any standard	Defendants urged deferential rational-basis review	Court: Bound by Ninth Circuit’s approach; applied the Ninth Circuit’s more rigorous form of rational-basis review used in ADAC
Whether Arizona’s distinction between DACA EADs and other EADs is rationally related to a legitimate state interest	Plaintiffs: State offered no evidence tying exclusion of DACA recipients to a legitimate, rational interest	Defendants: Justifications include uncertainty over DACA legality, liability if DACA revoked, prevention of improper benefit access, administrative burden, and public safety/financial responsibility concerns	Court: Defendants’ justifications unsupported by evidence and inconsistent (e.g., state issues licenses to (c)(9)/(c)(10) despite same risks); distinction fails even under the ADAC rational-basis analysis
Scope of relief — classwide vs. named plaintiffs	Plaintiffs (Coalition) sought relief for all DACA recipients and members	Defendants argued injunction should be limited to named plaintiffs	Court: Injunction applies to all DACA recipients because Coalition sued on behalf of its members and practical administration requires a broad remedy

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (U.S. 2012) (federal government has broad, plenary power over immigration)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (recognizing deferred action as prosecutorial discretion)
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) (Ninth Circuit granted preliminary injunction and applied rigorous rational-basis review)
Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standards for injunctive relief)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (traditional formulation of rational-basis review presumption)
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 499 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2007) (preliminary injunction phase legal conclusions bind district court on the law)
Zepeda v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1985) (injunctions ordinarily limited to named plaintiffs absent class certification)