318 F. Supp. 3d 601
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- ORR custody framework: Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) must be transferred to ORR and placed "promptly" in the least restrictive, best-interests setting (secure, staff-secure, or shelter care). TVPRA requires prompt placement.
- In mid-2017 ORR Director Scott Lloyd instituted a "director review" step requiring his personal approval for releases of any child ever housed in staff-secure or secure facilities.
- Plaintiffs (led by L.V.M., a former ORR detainee) allege the policy was adopted without justification, adds systemic delays (average additional ~35 days; class average detention ~242 days), and harms children's mental health.
- Relief sought: class certification, vacatur of the director-review policy, expedited processing; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court denied dismissal, certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of ORR children in New York who are or ever were in staff-secure/secure facilities, and granted a preliminary injunction vacating the director-review policy (but denied a broader order to micromanage processing timelines).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the director-review policy final, reviewable agency action under the APA? | Lloyd's policy is a final agency action that alters rights/obligations and is reviewable. | ORR decisions are committed to agency discretion and not judicially reviewable. | Reviewable: policy is final and not immune as action "committed to agency discretion." Court denies dismissal on reviewability. |
| Did adoption of the director-review policy violate the APA (arbitrary and capricious)? | Policy was adopted without investigation, contemporaneous rationale, or defined criteria; after-the-fact explanations insufficient. | Director acted within discretion to ensure oversight/accountability. | Likely arbitrary and capricious: court finds lack of reasoned decisionmaking and rejects post hoc rationalizations. |
| Does the policy violate the TVPRA mandate to "promptly" place UAC in least restrictive settings? | Policy causes systemic, substantial delays contrary to TVPRA prompt-placement mandate. | Policy furthers safety/oversight and is within ORR's placement discretion. | Policy likely conflicts with TVPRA: added delays undermine statutory "prompt" placement; court enjoins policy. |
| Is class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) appropriate for claims including due process? | Claims arise from unitary agency conduct; commonality, typicality, numerosity, adequacy met; injunctive relief would redress all class members. | Due-process claims are individualized; Rule 23(b)(2) inappropriate; some class members lack sponsors so would get no relief. | Class certified: common questions from uniform policy; (b)(2) proper; vacatur would benefit members even without sponsors (removes indirect delays). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (APA review requires final agency action)
- Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (presumption of judicial review of agency action)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (agency must provide reasoned explanation)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (agency action cannot be based on personal preference; need reasoned explanation)
- Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C., 579 F.3d 1 (vacatur/remand factors in assessing interim relief)