DOE NO. 1 v. NOEM
2:25-cv-01962
| E.D. Pa. | Apr 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff is a master's student at Temple University, lawfully present in the U.S. under F-1 student status, with academic progress and no university disciplinary issues.
- In April 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated Plaintiff's SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) record without prior notice, allegedly due to a pending criminal matter, but without a conviction.
- Termination of the SEVIS record jeopardized Plaintiff’s ability to complete his academic program, participate in required employment training, and remain in the U.S. legally.
- Plaintiff moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent enforcement of the SEVIS termination and restore status, claiming violations under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment.
- Defendants later reinstated Plaintiff’s SEVIS status but maintained authority to revoke it again, asserting the case was moot.
- The Court considered whether the TRO should issue given the risk of repeat conduct and ongoing harms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the SEVIS termination lawful under agency rules? | Termination for arrest (not conviction) is unauthorized under regulations. | Termination was proper due to criminal matter/arrest. | Not lawful; agency failed to follow rules. |
| Was the agency action arbitrary and capricious? | Defendants gave no rational or clear explanation; failed to follow own policies. | No clear substantive defense; later reinstated status without explanation. | Yes; action was arbitrary and capricious. |
| Is there irreparable harm absent relief? | Plaintiff faces removal, inability to study/work, economic loss, and personal risk. | Economic and educational harms not irreparable; process to correct exists. | Irreparable harm shown. |
| Is the case moot after reinstatement? | No assurance challenged conduct won't recur; Defendants maintain revocation power. | Case moot as relief already granted. | Not moot; TRO warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (articulates requirement for final agency action under the APA)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrariness/capriciousness standard for agency action)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for granting injunctive relief)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (factors for stays and preliminary injunctive relief)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (burden for mootness by voluntary cessation)
- FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234 (mootness and voluntary cessation standards)
- Fang v. Dir. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 935 F.3d 172 (jurisdiction and reviewability of SEVIS termination)