621 F.Supp.3d 84
D.D.C.2022Background
- Plaintiffs: Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform (MCIR) and six individuals sued DHS, DOS, and DOJ alleging NEPA violations arising from the Biden Administration’s changes to immigration policies and programs.
- Core allegation: agencies failed to prepare Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements before taking immigration-related actions that Plaintiffs say caused environmental harms (e.g., trash, fires, campsites on private land). Plaintiff Chance Smith, a border rancher, alleges concrete localized harms.
- Challenged actions included: halting border-wall construction; rescinding "Remain in Mexico" programs; changes to detention/removal/fine/parole practices; reinstating administrative closure in immigration courts; refugee resettlement operations; and DHS’s NEPA Instruction Manual. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) lack of Article III standing, that some claims are unreviewable under the APA (not final agency action or committed to agency discretion), and that certain INA provisions channel review to the courts of appeals.
- Ruling summary: the court found Article III standing (as to Chance Smith) and that most claims may proceed. It granted the motion to dismiss Counts I and XI: Count I (DHS Instruction Manual) is not final agency action; Count XI (broad programmatic EIS challenge) is not a discrete, reviewable agency action. All other dismissive arguments were denied at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing and NEPA zone of interests | Smith alleges procedural NEPA injury that resulted in concrete environmental harms to his ranch and seeks prospective relief | Defendants say injuries are speculative and outside NEPA’s zone of interests | Smith has standing; alleged environmental harms are concrete and within NEPA’s zone of interests |
| Count I: DHS NEPA Instruction Manual final agency action | Manual unlawfully omits immigration policy and is reviewable as final agency action | Manual is guidance, not the consummation of agency decisionmaking nor does it create legal obligations | Manual is not final agency action; Count I dismissed |
| Count XI: Programmatic EIS for "population growth" actions | Agencies should have prepared a programmatic EIS covering multiple immigration policies as a single national program | Programmatic challenge is impermissibly broad and not a discrete agency action | Programmatic challenge is unreviewable under APA; Count XI dismissed |
| Count VII: Reinstatement of administrative closure — jurisdiction under INA §1252 | Plaintiffs challenge lack of NEPA analysis for AG’s reinstatement of administrative closure | Defendants say INA channels such claims to courts of appeals as claims "arising from" removal proceedings | §1252 does not bar this NEPA claim here; district court has jurisdiction and claim may proceed |
| Count II: Halting border-wall construction — IIRIRA waiver and whether stopping construction is a "major federal action" | Ending construction required NEPA review; prior IIRIRA waiver was for construction only and cannot cover a stop-work decision | Trump-era IIRIRA waiver continues to apply; stopping construction is not a major federal action affecting the environment | At pleading stage, prior waiver does not bind Biden DHS on a stop-work decision; claim survives dismissal motion |
| Count III: Rescission of MPP and other "Remain in Mexico" policies | Rescission required NEPA analysis before implementation | Rescission and enforcement policy decisions are committed to agency discretion or otherwise unreviewable | Court finds these NEPA failure claims are reviewable at this stage and may proceed |
| Counts IV–VI, IX–X: Detention/removal/fines/parole policy changes — committed to agency discretion? | Plaintiffs challenge adoption of broad enforcement policies without NEPA review (not individual enforcement decisions) | Defendants invoke Heckler/§701(a)(2) to argue enforcement decisions are unreviewable | Court holds plaintiffs challenge procedural adoption of policies; at pleading stage claims survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA requires agencies to take a "hard look" at environmental consequences)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (two-part test for what constitutes final agency action)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1990) (limits on programmatic APA challenges)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (APA review limited to discrete agency action)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (agency "last word" concept in finality analysis)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (decisions not to enforce are presumptively committed to agency discretion)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018) (interpretation of INA §1252(b)(9) and caution against literal overreach of "arising from")
- Whitewater Draw National Resource Conservation District v. Mayorkas, 5 F.4th 997 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding DHS NEPA Instruction Manual is not final agency action)