461 F.Supp.3d 779
N.D. Ill.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Cook County and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) challenge DHS’s 2019 "public charge" Final Rule, which redefines "public charge" to count receipt of certain cash and in-kind benefits over a 36‑month period and makes such findings relevant to visa, admission, and adjustment decisions.
- ICIRR alleges the Rule will disproportionately disqualify nonwhite immigrants (especially Latinos) and that DHS promulgated it with discriminatory intent to suppress immigration from majority nonwhite countries.
- Complaint points to contemporaneous statements and internal communications: President’s public remarks, Stephen Miller’s emails (including links to white‑nationalist material) and involvement in pushing the rule, and then‑USCIS Acting Director Kenneth Cuccinelli’s public remarks about the Statue of Liberty poem.
- Procedurally: the court previously issued a preliminary injunction (based on likely APA violations); DHS appealed and the Supreme Court stayed that injunction. The district court proceeds on the merits here.
- DHS moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court adheres to prior rulings denying dismissal on standing/APA/ripeness grounds and here considers DHS’s motion to dismiss ICIRR’s equal protection claim and ICIRR’s request for extra‑record discovery.
- The court denied DHS’s motion to dismiss ICIRR’s equal protection claim and held ICIRR is entitled to extra‑record discovery on that claim (and denied DHS’s request to stay discovery pending appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICIRR plausibly pleaded an equal protection claim (intent to discriminate) | Alleged disparate impact plus evidence of discriminatory intent: President’s statements, Miller’s emails and role as architect, Cuccinelli’s comments; these support an inference DHS acted at least in part because of race/ethnicity | Rule is facially neutral; disparate impact alone insufficient; administrative record and notice‑and‑comment show nondiscriminatory economic justifications; statements by non‑DHS actors irrelevant | Claim survives 12(b)(6); court finds allegations of intentional discrimination plausible and denies dismissal |
| Whether Trump v. Hawaii requires rational‑basis review for immigration rule | Arlington Heights-style inquiry applies to facially neutral rules alleged to be motivated by invidious purpose; strict scrutiny appropriate where discriminatory purpose shown | Immigration context (and President/Executive authority) calls for deference and rational‑basis review under Hawaii | Hawaii does not displace Arlington Heights here; economic rule by agency is not the national‑security Presidential action addressed in Hawaii |
| Whether ICIRR may obtain extra‑record discovery to probe discriminatory intent | Constitutional equal‑protection claim and evidence (emails, public statements, missing interagency communications) justify extra‑record discovery; constitutional claims not necessarily cabined by APA record rule | APA presumption limits review to the administrative record; extra‑record discovery allowed only on a "strong showing" of bad faith or incomplete record | Court permits extra‑record discovery: (1) holds constitutional claim can justify discovery beyond the record; (2) alternatively finds ICIRR meets the "strong showing" standard (incomplete record and indicia of impermissible motive) |
| Whether discovery should be stayed pending DHS’s appeal of the preliminary injunction | ICIRR: discovery should proceed on equal‑protection claim | DHS: stay discovery pending appeal to avoid burden and inefficiency | Court denies stay; appeal concerned APA claims and does not preclude moving forward on the equal‑protection discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (sets test for proving discriminatory purpose behind facially neutral government action)
- Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (discusses administrative‑record review and circumstances justifying extra‑record discovery)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (addresses deference to Presidential immigration actions in national‑security context)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (observes agencies are subject to Presidential supervision)
- Alston v. City of Madison, 853 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2017) (explains discriminatory purpose requires action taken at least in part because of adverse effects on an identifiable group)
- Citizens for Appropriate Rural Rds. v. Foxx, 815 F.3d 1068 (7th Cir. 2016) (describes standard for obtaining extra‑record discovery in APA contexts)
- Air Transport Ass’n of Am. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 663 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (characterizes the "strong showing" standard for extra‑record discovery)