E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump
354 F. Supp. 3d 1094
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- In November 2018 DOJ and DHS issued an interim final Rule and the President issued a Proclamation that together made aliens who enter the U.S. between designated ports of entry categorically ineligible for asylum.
- Four immigration organizations (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, CARECEN) challenged the Rule under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court previously granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Rule; the Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s stay application and treated the TRO as an appealable preliminary injunction.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction; defendants argued the Rule is a lawful exercise of INA rulemaking, and that notice-and-comment exceptions (foreign affairs, good cause) apply.
- The district court held (again) that plaintiffs are likely to succeed because the Rule conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), and that the agencies likely failed to justify bypassing notice-and-comment; it granted a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the Rule’s amendments to 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13 and 1208.13.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule lawfully bars asylum for aliens who enter between ports | The Rule conflicts with INA § 1158(a)(1), which allows any alien "physically present" or who "arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival)" to apply for asylum | The Rule is a lawful exercise of the Attorney General’s § 1158(b)(2)(C) authority to create categorical bars and is a permissible interpretation of the INA (and consistent with enforcement interests) | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; Rule conflicts with unambiguous § 1158(a)(1) and is not a reasonable Chevron interpretation |
| Whether agencies lawfully avoided notice-and-comment via the foreign affairs exception | Agencies failed to show a record-based connection between foreign-relations negotiations (with Mexico) and immediate bypassing of notice-and-comment | Government contends the Rule’s preamble and referenced materials facially justify the foreign affairs exception | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on this claim because the administrative record does not show the necessary connection; Ninth Circuit invited supplementation but record is insufficient |
| Whether good cause justified immediate interim rulemaking (no notice-and-comment) | Plaintiffs say alleged surges are speculative and administrative record does not support emergency good-cause waiver | Government points to media, operational realities, and evidence suggesting policy announcements can spur migration; argues good cause exists | Court: Government likely to prevail on good-cause claim based on some evidence (e.g., reporting of smugglers’ messaging), but foreign affairs claim still fails; merits still favor Plaintiffs overall |
| Standing and scope of injunctive relief (nationwide) | Organizations show organizational injury: diversion of resources, increased costs per case, and loss of funding; thus have Article III and zone-of-interests standing; nationwide relief needed to afford complete relief | Government argues lack of third-party standing, that relief should be narrow or limited to plaintiffs’ actual clients, and statutory limits (8 U.S.C. § 1252) restrict relief | Court: Organizations have organizational standing; Ninth Circuit precedent controls; court has jurisdiction and may grant a nationwide injunction enjoining amendments to 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13 and 1208.13 |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing doctrine; injury from diversion of resources)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 545 U.S. 967 (treatment of agency interpretations under Chevron)
- Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. view that manner of entry is of little weight in asylum balancing)
- E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. denial of stay; binding circuit guidance on merits, standing, and nationwide injunction)
- Azar v. Garza (California v. Azar), 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. guidance on scope of equitable relief and consideration of nationwide effects)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (limits on jurisdictional bars to judicial review)