Christopher Crane v. Jeh Johnson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5573
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs: several ICE agents and Mississippi sued DHS officials challenging the 2012 DACA directive, which directs DHS personnel to exercise "deferred action" (prosecutorial discretion) for certain unauthorized immigrants who meet listed criteria.
- Agents claim DACA conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which they read as a statutory command to detain and initiate removal proceedings for all inadmissible aliens; they assert injuries including oath violation, increased burdens, and threat of employment sanctions.
- Mississippi claims fiscal injury from DACA beneficiaries remaining in the state, citing a 2006 study estimating net costs of illegal immigration to the state.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing and, as to some claims, failure to exhaust CSRA remedies); court of appeals reviews standing de novo.
- The Fifth Circuit held neither Mississippi nor the Agents alleged a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury fairly traceable to DACA; therefore Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi's standing to challenge DACA | DACA keeps certain unauthorized immigrants in MS, increasing state expenditures (education, health, law enforcement) demonstrated by a 2006 state study | MS points only to general immigration costs; DHS says MS produced no evidence that DACA causes additional costs or that a ruling would redress alleged harm | No standing — speculative fiscal injury; MS produced no evidence that DACA increased or will increase state costs |
| Agents' claim that DACA forces them to violate their oath (injury by oath violation) | Enforcing DACA would require violating their oath to uphold federal immigration law (§1225) | An officer's subjective belief that following policy violates law is not a cognizable Article III injury absent concrete adverse consequences | No standing — oath violation alone is not a sufficient, concrete injury |
| Agents' burden of complying with DACA | Changing procedures to implement DACA imposes concrete burdens and altered job duties | Routine work changes do not confer standing; plaintiffs must show a substantial, specific increase in burden | No standing — alleged compliance burden too generalized and not shown to be substantially different |
| Agents' threat of employment sanctions for refusing to follow DACA | Agents claim they face discipline or other personnel actions if they detain DACA-eligible aliens instead of deferring action | DHS and the record show the directive preserves case-by-case discretion; no evidence of disciplinary sanctions or threats; isolated admonishment insufficient | No standing — threatened sanctions are neither concrete nor "certainly impending"; directive grants discretion so sanction is unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (allegations of speculative future injury are insufficient for standing)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (threatened enforcement can give rise to standing only where threatened injury is sufficiently imminent)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (recognizing broad prosecutorial discretion in deportation context)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (standing requires an injury that is actual or imminent, not conjectural)