Pangea Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 512 F.Supp.3d 966

Background

DHS and DOJ issued a final joint rule on asylum procedures (Dec. 11, 2020) that would expand third-country bars, broaden frivolous-application grounds, and create a pretermission process to reject asylum applications without a hearing.
Plaintiffs (nonprofit organizations representing asylum seekers and LGBTQ/HIV-positive refugees) sued to set aside the Rule on Dec. 21, 2020, arguing (among other things) that the Rule was promulgated without lawful authority because Chad F. Wolf was not a valid Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and that the Rule violated the APA.
The Rule followed a 30-day comment period despite massive public input; the final Rule largely mirrored the proposed rule.
Multiple district courts and the GAO previously found defects in Wolf’s appointment chain; the government largely reasserted the same succession and FVRA arguments here.
The court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining implementation and enforcement of the Rule, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that DHS lacked authority under Wolf, irreparable harm, and that the public interest and balance of hardships favored an injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of DHS rulemaking authority (Wolf as Acting Secretary)	Wolf lacked lawful authority under the HSA and FVRA because Nielsen’s delegation did not authorize McAleenan’s then-Wolf succession	Wolf’s authority is valid via DHS succession orders and/or FVRA-based acts and ratifications	Court held plaintiffs likely to succeed: Nielsen’s order didn’t authorize McAleenan→Wolf succession; Gaynor never lawfully served to cure succession; Wolf lacked authority to promulgate the Rule
APA procedural/substantive challenges to the Rule	Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and procedurally defective (short comment period, substantive changes to asylum law)	Rule is a valid exercise of agency rulemaking authority and notice-and-comment process	Court did not reach merits of substantive APA challenges because lack of DHS authority was dispositive at this stage
Irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations	Implementation would force diversion of resources, reduce filings, and impair missions; economic harms unrecoverable under APA	Government argued public interest and regulatory needs justify implementation	Court found plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm (organizational mission disruptions; potential funding loss)
Scope of relief (nationwide injunction)	Nationwide relief required to avoid fragmented immigration rules and to provide complete relief	Relief should be limited geographically or to named plaintiffs	Court granted nationwide injunction, citing APA presumption to set aside agency action in entirety and need for uniform immigration policy

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunction factors)
Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) (minimum showing: fair chance of success or serious questions)
Garcia v. Google, 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (likely success on the merits is the most important factor)
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (organizational irreparable harm; economic injuries in APA context)
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (public interest and merger of third/fourth injunction factors when government is party)
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020) (presumption in APA cases to set aside agency action in full; uniform relief in immigration cases)
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, 486 U.S. 281 (1988) (agency action that is interrelated with other regulations may require setting aside related provisions)
Los Angeles Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2011) (injunction must not be more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief)
Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2020) (importance of maintaining status quo to promote a stable immigration system)
Arc of California v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2014) (application of preliminary injunction factor balancing)