Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2:21-cv-00395

Plaintiffs, four nonprofit legal service providers for unaccompanied immigrant children, challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy regarding children previously enrolled in the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) who subsequently re-entered the U.S. unaccompanied ("MPP-unaccompanied children").
Under MPP, many families, including children, were sent to Mexico to await immigration proceedings. Some children later returned to the U.S. alone, facing removal based on their families' pending or finalized orders as if they were still part of the original case.
Plaintiffs argued these children are entitled to special protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which guarantees unaccompanied minors substantive and procedural safeguards not afforded to adults or accompanied minors.
Defendants’ policy continued to treat such children under their family’s prior removal proceedings, denying them protections and procedures required for unaccompanied children (such as non-adversarial asylum adjudication and eligibility for voluntary departure).
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions after DHS failed to produce updated data on affected children in a timely manner, accepting certain facts as established, including the number of children affected and removed under the challenged policy.
The case reached judgment phase following a bench trial, with decision reserved on remedies pending further briefings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial Review Jurisdiction	Court has jurisdiction; claims are collateral to removal	Statutes bar the court from hearing this type of claim	Court has jurisdiction; claims are collateral, not barred
Standing	Organizations have suffered direct harm, impairing mission	No injury or traceability; burdens would exist regardless	Plaintiffs have standing: direct harm and traceability shown
APA Violation	Policy is contrary to law (TVPRA) and arbitrary	Policy is consistent with statute; no final agency action	Policy is final, contrary to TVPRA, and arbitrary/capricious
Due Process Violation	Lack of notice/opportunity denies protected interests	TVPRA rights not constitutional entitlements	Policy denies constitutionally protected interests (asylum/VD)

Regents of the Univ. of California v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 591 U.S. 1 (APA review not barred where challenge is collateral to removal)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing if core activities impaired)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Due Process balancing test)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (final agency action test)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (judicial review preclusion limited to discretionary decisions)
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (deportation as severe deprivation)