332 F. Supp. 3d 393
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (individual TPS recipients and two immigrant-advocacy organizations) challenge DHS decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Haiti, and Honduras and seek injunctive/declaratory relief and other remedies.
- Plaintiffs allege the Trump Administration adopted a new, narrower policy: evaluate only whether the original conditions that prompted designation persist, rather than broader current country conditions affecting safe return; that policy produced the 2017–2018 terminations.
- Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims (equal protection and due process), APA claims (arbitrary and capricious and failure to provide notice-and-comment), a mandamus claim, and request declaratory relief; they also sued the President in his official capacity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)) and for failure to state claims.
- The court concluded it has jurisdiction over the constitutional and APA claims (drawing on McNary), found Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a new policy and discriminatory motive, denied dismissal of most counts, and dismissed only the mandamus claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to TPS designation process | Statutory bar does not show clear congressional intent to preclude judicial review of constitutional and process challenges; removal proceedings would not provide meaningful review | 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) precludes review, or review can be channeled to removal proceedings | Court: jurisdiction exists for collateral constitutional and APA challenges (McNary analogy); removal proceedings do not provide meaningful review here |
| Standard of review and animus: whether Arlington Heights applies to challenge alleging race/national-origin animus in adoption of new policy | Plaintiffs: facially neutral policy change motivated by racial/ethnic animus; Arlington Heights factors support heightened scrutiny | Defendants: immigration/nationality decisions get deference and rational-basis review; animus of President cannot be imputed | Court: Arlington Heights framework applies; Plaintiffs plausibly alleged discriminatory purpose and policy shift; dismissal denied (even rational-basis would likely fail at this stage) |
| APA claims: arbitrary-and-capricious and notice-and-comment | Agency adopted an unexplained, retroactive change in policy without acknowledging reasons or reliance interests; even an interpretive change requires acknowledgment | Defendants: no new policy; at most an interpretive rule not subject to notice-and-comment; statute vests broad discretion in Secretary | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged an unexplained change in agency position; APA claims survive motion to dismiss (notice issue left for merits) |
| Mandamus and inclusion of President as defendant | Mandamus unnecessary because statutory and constitutional remedies available; injunctive relief against President is extraordinary but not resolved now | Defendants: mandamus inappropriate; extraordinary to enjoin President so should be dismissed | Court: Mandamus claim dismissed (not exhausted / duplicative); President remains a defendant for now (premature to dismiss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coll. Hill Props., LLC v. City of Worcester, 821 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2016) (pleading/plausibility standard)
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (district-court review allowed of procedural challenges to immigration benefit decisions where other forums would not provide meaningful review)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (clear-statement rule for precluding judicial review of constitutional claims)
- Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action)
- Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (channeling review to specialized forum can defeat Webster presumption where meaningful review exists)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (framework for proving discriminatory purpose in facially neutral actions)
- Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (limits on procedural claims framed as substantive benefit claims)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (limits on selective-enforcement claims in immigration context)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (rational-basis review and deference for admission/national-security decisions)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (agency must acknowledge and explain policy changes; unexplained inconsistency can be arbitrary and capricious)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (interpretive rules generally not subject to notice-and-comment)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (liability where biased supervisor causes adverse action by neutral decisionmaker)