DOE NO. 1 v. NOEM
2:25-cv-01962
| E.D. Pa. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff (Doe), a foreign master’s student at Temple University, was lawfully present in the U.S. on an F-1 visa and in good academic standing.
- Plaintiff’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record was terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without notice, allegedly due to a criminal matter, despite no conviction or university disciplinary action.
- The termination of SEVIS status jeopardized Plaintiff’s lawful presence, academic progress, and future career opportunities.
- Plaintiff filed suit against DHS and ICE officials under the APA and the Fifth Amendment, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent termination of his SEVIS status.
- The court had previously granted a TRO, finding Plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits; this opinion addresses the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the termination of Doe's SEVIS record lawful under agency rules? | DOE: DHS acted arbitrarily and outside its authority, as no conviction triggered termination under governing regulations. | DEF: The termination was justified by Plaintiff’s arrest and a new internal policy; potential harm is now moot due to SEVIS reactivation. | Unlawful; Agency exceeded its authority and failed to follow regulations. |
| Did Doe suffer a due process violation from lack of notice or opportunity to contest? | DOE: No notice or process was provided before SEVIS termination, violating due process rights. | DEF: SEVIS record has been reactivated; no ongoing harm or constitutional violation exists. | Yes; Failure to notify or provide process violated due process. |
| Is Doe likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction? | DOE: Loss of status could result in deportation, detention, academic/career harm, and fear of retribution. | DEF: Harm is speculative since SEVIS is now active and there are no current plans for further termination. | Harm is not speculative — future recurrence possible; irreparable harm established. |
| Is a preliminary injunction warranted on balance of equities and public interest? | DOE: Likelihood of success and ongoing risk to Plaintiff far outweighs any harm to government or public. | DEF: Injunction not needed; the government must maintain efficient immigration operations. | Injunction warranted; equities and public interest favor Plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (articulates the standard and critical factors for preliminary injunctions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (discusses irreparable harm and public interest when the government is a party)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (addresses speculative harm and standing for injunctive relief)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (explains voluntary cessation doctrine and mootness)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (details voluntary cessation must eliminate reasonable expectation of recurrence)