Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer
945 F. Supp. 2d 1049
D. Ariz.2013Background
- DACA announced June 15, 2012; eligible DREAMers receive two-year deferred action and may obtain EADs.
- Arizona law § 28-3153(D) requires proof of authorized presence; MVD previously accepted EADs as sufficient.
- ADOT revised policy after DACA announcement to reject DACA EADs for licenses while continuing to accept other EADs.
- Governor Brewer issued Executive Order 2012-06 directing denial of taxpayer-funded benefits and state IDs, including driver’s licenses, to Deferred Action recipients.
- ADOT policy changed to deny licenses to DACA recipients on Sept. 17, 2012, while continuing to issue licenses to others with EADs.
- Plaintiffs ADAC and five DACA recipients claim policy violates Supremacy Clause and Equal Protection; court denies preliminary injunction and partially grants dismissal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause preemption of AZ policy | ADAC argues policy conflicts with federal DACA | Arizona policy is not preempted or conflicted with federal law | Plaintiffs fail to show per se or conflict preemption |
| Equal protection – are DACA recipients similarly situated | DACA recipients similarly situated to other EAD holders | DACA recipients differ due to category code and status | DACA recipients are likely similarly situated to other EAD holders for license policy |
| Level of scrutiny under equal protection | DACA status warrants strict or heightened scrutiny | Rational basis applies | Not strict or heightened; likely rational basis with active review |
| Whether injunction should be mandatory or prohibitory | Seek prohibitory relief to stop unconstitutional policy | Would be mandatory to issue licenses to Plaintiffs | Injunction deemed mandatory; heightened scrutiny applicable |
| Irreparable harm and public interest | Denial of licenses causes irreparable harm | No irreparable harm shown; policy does not preclude public interest considerations | Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; balance/public interest do not warrant injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (establishes four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (aliens as a suspect class; heightened scrutiny)
- Griffiths v. Connecticut, 413 U.S. 717 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (resident aliens treated like citizens; equal protection concerns)
- Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (equal protection limits on alienage classifications (undocumented status contextual))
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (undocumented status not an immutable characteristic; education case; not per se preemption)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (no per se preemption rule for state classifications of aliens; field remains)
- Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (conflict preemption; benefits vs federal authorization)
- Moreno (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno), 413 U.S. 528 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (rational basis with strong evidence of irrational purpose constraints)
- Cleburne Living Center v. City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (rational basis scrutiny standards in zoning and classifications)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (rational basis with status-based classifications lacking legitimate objectives)
- Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (more rigorous rational basis review in equal protection context)
- LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2005) (strict scrutiny not applied to nonimmigrant aliens; rational basis default)
- LULAC v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007) (noncitizen classifications under rational basis scrutiny)
- Dandamudi v. Tisch, 686 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2012) (diverse approaches to alienage classifications; some apply strict scrutiny)