364 F. Supp. 3d 568
D. Md.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (NAACP, HWHR, Haitian Lawyers Ass'n) challenge DHS's November 2017 termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, alleging Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process violations and seeking injunction/declaratory relief.
- Haiti had received TPS after the 2010 earthquake and received multiple extensions through 2015; the Trump Administration moved to end TPS in late 2017 with an 18-month delayed effective date.
- Plaintiffs allege the termination was driven by racial and national-origin animus, pointing to President Trump’s alleged statements about Haitians, targeted DHS searches, departures from prior statutory analyses, and delays in publication of the Federal Register notice.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (statutory bar on judicial review of TPS determinations) and for failure to state a claim (rational-basis review, lack of comparator evidence, and non-attribution of Presidential statements to DHS decisionmakers).
- The court held it has jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims despite 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)’s general bar on review and denied dismissal of the constitutional claim (Count I) but dismissed the mandamus and declaratory-judgment counts (Counts II–III).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional challenge to TPS termination | Statutory bar does not clearly preclude review of colorable constitutional claims | 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) precludes judicial review of TPS designations/terminations | Court: Jurisdiction exists for constitutional claims; statutory text does not clearly and convincingly strip review |
| Level of scrutiny for equal-protection claim | Arlington Heights scrutiny: inquiry into motive/animus, allowing circumstantial evidence | Apply rational-basis review (citing immigration precedent, Trump v. Hawaii) | Court: Arlington Heights framework governs; Plaintiffs plausibly allege impermissible animus |
| Need for comparator evidence | Not required for programmatic, group-based discrimination claims; may rely on Arlington Heights factors | Plaintiffs must identify similarly situated comparators treated differently | Court: Comparator not required; allegation of discriminatory motive suffices at pleading stage |
| Mandamus and declaratory relief | Plaintiffs seek mandamus for alleged failures under INA and declaratory relief as alternative remedy | Mandamus is narrow; declaratory relief is not independent when constitutional remedy available | Court: Counts II and III dismissed (mandamus unavailable; declaratory judgment redundant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving intentional discrimination through direct and circumstantial evidence)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (addressing judicial review and level of scrutiny in certain immigration/national-security contexts)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (Congress must clearly and convincingly preclude review of constitutional claims)
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (presumption in favor of judicial review of statutory schemes affecting immigration)
- Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) (mandamus relief requires a clear, nondiscretionary duty)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (constitutional claims can provide a direct cause of action and injunctive relief)