460 F.Supp.3d 27
D.D.C.2020Background
- Presidential Proclamation 10014 (Apr. 22, 2020) temporarily suspended entry of certain immigrants (family-based and diversity visas) effective Apr. 23, 2020, citing COVID-19 economic and healthcare concerns.
- Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and 2020 diversity-visa selectees seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin implementation/enforcement of the Proclamation to prevent family-separation and loss of diversity visas.
- Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint and an immediate TRO motion; briefing and a hearing followed in May 2020.
- The court denied the TRO for lack of Article III standing under the heightened standards applicable to preliminary relief: plaintiffs failed to submit evidence of standing with their initial motion.
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits with their reply, but the court found those too late (forfeited) and unfair to defendants; even if considered, plaintiffs failed to show causation and redressability because many delays predated the Proclamation or arise from other actions (e.g., consular requests, State Department suspension of routine visa services since Mar. 20, 2020).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury in fact) | Proclamation causes imminent, concrete harm: delayed reunification and loss of diversity visas | Plaintiffs provided no timely evidence of injury in initial motion; alleged harms speculative | Denied — plaintiffs failed to establish standing under the heightened TRO standard |
| Forfeiture of late evidence | Affidavits in reply show concrete harms and traceability to Proclamation | Reply evidence forfeited; defendants had no opportunity to respond | Denied — court refused to consider evidence filed first in reply as untimely |
| Causation & redressability | Enjoining Proclamation will allow visa processing to resume and remedy harms | Delays often predate Proclamation or stem from other factors (consular requests, March 20 suspension); enjoining Proclamation may not redress harms | Denied — plaintiffs did not show harms were fairly traceable to, or likely redressable by, enjoining the Proclamation |
| Preliminary-injunction standard | TRO necessary and appropriate given irreparable family harms | Plaintiffs failed to meet extraordinary-burden requirements, including likelihood of success and standing | Denied — plaintiffs did not carry the heightened burden for extraordinary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371 (heightened standing proof for preliminary relief; must provide specific affidavit evidence)
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (merits include jurisdictional standing; standing required for injunctions)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (plaintiff must show likelihood of success on the merits for injunctive relief)
- Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251 (extraordinary remedies require clear showing and burden of persuasion)
- Gov’t of Manitoba ex rel. Schmitt v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173 (ordinary forfeiture rules apply to standing arguments)