336 F. Supp. 3d 1075
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are TPS beneficiaries from Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador challenging DHS decisions to terminate those countries' Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations. The court previously allowed APA and Equal Protection claims to proceed despite 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)'s no‑judicial‑review language.
- DHS decisionmaking under the Trump administration produced termination notices focused on whether the original triggering conditions (e.g., earthquake, armed conflict, Hurricane Mitch) or conditions directly related to them persisted, while de‑emphasizing other current country conditions.
- Record evidence (agency emails, Decision Memos, testimony) shows political appointees and White House officials pressed for termination; some DHS documents describe the shift as a "strong break with past practice" and tied to the President's immigration objectives.
- Plaintiffs offered declarations showing likely irreparable harms to beneficiaries and communities (family separation, job loss, economic impacts); amici quantified wider economic and public‑interest harms from mass loss of TPS.
- The court found evidence raising (a) an APA claim that DHS changed longstanding adjudicative practice without acknowledging or rationally explaining the change, and (b) Equal Protection issues (Arlington Heights framework) given statements by the President/White House and departures from normal process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA challenge to DHS practice change | DHS abandoned prior practice of considering all relevant current country conditions and instead limited review to originating conditions; DHS gave no reasoned explanation. | DHS says variations reflect fact‑intensive distinctions, not a new rule, and APA procedural protections apply mainly to rulemaking affecting regulated entities. | Court: Plaintiffs showed likely success / serious questions — DHS changed significant practice without acknowledging/explaining it, violating APA. |
| Equal Protection (discriminatory purpose) | Decisionmaking was influenced by White House/President, whose statements show animus toward non‑white, non‑European immigrants; circumstantial evidence (impact, sequence, departures) supports discriminatory motive. | Government urges deference and reliance on immigration precedent (Trump v. Hawaii) and contends decisions are facially neutral and national‑interest based. | Court: Serious questions on Equal Protection under Arlington Heights; preliminary injunction warranted on this independent ground. |
| Deference / standard of review (Trump v. Hawaii) | Arlington Heights applies because affected aliens are lawfully present long‑term residents and there was no national security/foreign‑policy basis; thus ordinary equal protection inquiry is appropriate. | Government argues Trump v. Hawaii demands heightened deference to executive immigration decisions, limiting review. | Court: Arlington Heights governs here; even under Trump v. Hawaii's rational‑basis inquiry, extrinsic evidence raises serious questions. |
| Irreparable harm / balance of equities & public interest | Loss of TPS would irreparably harm beneficiaries and their U.S.‑resident families and cause substantial community/economic harm; injunction preserves status quo while merits proceed. | Government contends TPS is temporary and uncertainties are inherent; also invokes need to follow statutory process and executive discretion. | Court: Plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm and the balance of hardships/public interest favor preliminary injunction; government showed no concrete harm from preserving status quo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2017) (sliding‑scale variant of Winter)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review under the APA)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency must acknowledge and explain changes in policy)
- California Trout v. F.E.R.C., 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009) (adjudicative practice can create expectations reviewable under the APA)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (constitutional protections differ for aliens inside vs. outside the U.S.)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory purpose under Equal Protection)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (deferential review of certain immigration/entry decisions; court distinguished its applicability here)