Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
284 F. Supp. 3d 758
D. Maryland2018Background
- Plaintiffs (DACA recipients and immigrant-rights organizations) sued federal officials seeking to enjoin DHS's September 5, 2017 rescission of the DACA policy and to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; parties briefed and the Court held oral argument.
- DHS rescinded DACA based on legal advice (including AG Sessions) and the recent defeat of DAPA, providing a six-month wind-down to avoid chaos and to urge Congress to legislate.
- Plaintiffs alleged APA violations (arbitrary-and-capricious and failure to use notice-and-comment), Fifth Amendment claims (procedural and substantive due process, equal protection), and equitable estoppel (including claims about use of DACA application data).
- The Court reviewed justiciability, standing, and the administrative record and concluded DHS reasonably believed DACA unlawful; it denied relief on most claims but enjoined the Government from using DACA application data for immigration enforcement without case-by-case court approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / APA review | Rescission is reviewable under the APA; agency action must meet statutory standards | Rescission committed to executive/ prosecutorial discretion; 8 U.S.C. §1252(g) bars review | All claims are justiciable; APA review of procedures is available |
| APA: notice-and-comment & arbitrary-and-capricious | Rescission required notice-and-comment; Administrative Record was insufficient; decision was arbitrary | DACA was a discretionary deferred-action policy (non-binding); rescission was rational and based on legal advice and DAPA precedent | Rescission did not require notice-and-comment and was not arbitrary or capricious |
| Equal protection / discriminatory motive | Rescission targeted majority-Latino beneficiaries and reflected discriminatory animus (pointing to presidential statements) | Rescission premised on facially legitimate, bona fide legal rationale (unlawfulness); no record evidence of racial animus | No equal protection violation; Court will not look behind the facially legitimate rationale absent a strong, particularized showing of bad faith |
| Procedural & substantive due process; Estoppel re: DACA status | DACA conferred protected interests (employment authorization, lawful presence); estoppel based on government promises | DACA expressly disclaimed creation of substantive rights; policy rescission is class policy change, not individualized deprivation; estoppel not warranted for rescission | Procedural and substantive due process claims fail; no estoppel for rescission, but estoppel/injunctive relief granted as to use of DACA-collected information for enforcement absent court permission |
Key Cases Cited
- Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892) (executive branch authority over admission/supervision of aliens)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (courts defer to facially legitimate, bona fide executive reasons in immigration context)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (limits on judicial review of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (presumption of judicial review under the APA)
- Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915) (no individualized hearing required for broad policy decisions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)