355 F. Supp. 3d 307
D. Maryland2018Background
- In 2001 El Salvador was designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after a major earthquake; successive administrations extended TPS repeatedly through 2016; ~262,500 Salvadorans in the U.S. are TPS beneficiaries.
- DHS announced termination of El Salvador's TPS in January 2018, effective September 9, 2019; plaintiffs filed suit in March 2018 challenging the termination.
- Plaintiffs: three Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries and CASA de Maryland; defendants: President Trump, DHS, and Secretary Nielsen.
- Plaintiffs allege termination was motivated by anti-Latino animus (citing President Trump’s statements) and raise claims under the Fifth Amendment (Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process), the INA, and the APA.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing statutory jurisdictional bar (8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A)) precludes review of termination decisions and that the President should be dismissed on separation-of-powers grounds.
- The court granted dismissal only as to the INA claim (Count III) but denied dismissal of the Equal Protection, Due Process, APA claims and refused to dismiss the President at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under TPS statute | §1254a(b)(5)(A) does not bar judicial review of constitutional or APA claims alleging unconstitutional motive or action beyond statutory authority | §1254a(b)(5)(A) strips courts of jurisdiction over TPS designation/termination decisions | Court: statute bars review of merits of INA challenge (sufficiency of DHS determination) but does not bar review of colorable constitutional or APA claims alleging discriminatory motive or actions beyond statutory authority |
| Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment) | Termination was motivated by racial/ethnic animus (President’s statements and departure from prior practice) and Arlington Heights analysis applies | Defendants urge deference and rely on Trump v. Hawaii/rational-basis because immigration classifications involve nationality | Court: Arlington Heights governs; plaintiffs plausibly alleged discriminatory motive sufficient to state an Equal Protection claim |
| Substantive Due Process (Fifth Amendment) | Intentional racial discrimination in terminating TPS that sends beneficiaries to unsafe conditions is "conscience-shocking" and arbitrary | Defendants argue claim fails under the stringent "fatally arbitrary" standard | Court: Allegations (intentional anti-Latino motive causing severe consequences) plausibly meet conscience-shocking threshold; claim survives pleading stage |
| APA — arbitrary and capricious / excess of statutory authority | Termination was arbitrary and capricious: (1) infected by discriminatory motive, (2) DHS departed from prior assessment practice without reason, (3) failed to consider reliance interests | Defendants contend (a) jurisdictional bar prevents APA review of merits, and (b) reliance-interest theory is not required by TPS statute | Court: APA claims based on discriminatory motive and unexplained departure plausibly stated; reliance-interest theory rejected as not mandated by statute; INA-based ultra vires claim dismissed |
| President as defendant / equitable relief | Plaintiffs may name President given his alleged involvement; relief against subordinate officers may be insufficient for organizational plaintiff | Defendants argue injunction against President is improper and relief against Secretary is adequate | Court: At pleading stage, President not dismissed; separation concerns noted but dismissal is premature |
Key Cases Cited
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498 U.S. 479 (holds jurisdiction-stripping language barring review of individual determinations does not preclude collateral constitutional challenges)
- Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., 509 U.S. 43 (permits review of regulatory interpretation despite statutory limits when review does not conflict with statutory scheme)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (framework for evaluating discriminatory purpose of facially neutral actions)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (applies deferential review to certain immigration-related Executive actions; court distinguishes admissions/national-security context)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (agency must provide reasoned explanation; arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (bias by a superior that affects a neutral decisionmaker can establish liability)