345 F. Supp. 3d 287
E.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Haiti was designated for TPS after the 2010 earthquake and received multiple extensions; DHS terminated Haiti's TPS on Nov. 20, 2017, effective July 22, 2019, citing recovery from earthquake-related conditions.
- Plaintiffs (Haitian nationals, organizations, and individuals) sued DHS, the President (official capacity), and senior DHS officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the termination as unlawful under the TPS statute, APA, INA, the RFA, and the Fifth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs allege DHS adopted a new, narrower standard (focusing only on conditions underlying the original designation) and failed to consider current extraordinary conditions; they also allege termination was motivated by racial/national-origin animus tied to statements by the President.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) precluding review) and to dismiss on the merits, and separately moved to stay the case pending the Ramos appeal.
- The court held oral argument and denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion to stay; this opinion explains the reasons in writing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over collateral/process and constitutional challenges to TPS termination | TPS statute's bar precludes review only of individual "determinations"; Plaintiffs challenge procedures, policy change, and constitutional claims so reviewable | Statutory preclusion of "any determination" forecloses judicial review of TPS designation/termination and constitutional review | Court: Jurisdiction exists for procedural/collateral APA and constitutional claims; statutory bar does not clearly preclude them (McNary and Webster reasoning) |
| APA arbitrary-and-capricious (policy change) | DHS abandoned longstanding practice by applying a narrower standard focused only on original-designation conditions without reasoned explanation | DHS contends no policy change and cites other terminations; insists decision was supported by record | Court: Plausible allegation of a substantive, unexplained policy shift; denial of dismissal on APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim |
| APA notice-and-comment / RFA compliance | New policy or substantive rule (or alternatively a binding interpretive change) required notice-and-comment and RFA analysis of impacts on small entities | DHS contends rulemaking procedures not required | Court: Notice-and-comment and RFA claims survive at pleading stage; cannot dismiss Count IV or Count V |
| Equal Protection / Due Process (animus) | Termination motivated in part by racial/national-origin animus (President's statements); Arlington Heights framework allows challenge without showing comparator | Defendants: Rational-basis review governs; rely on immigration precedent and Trump v. Hawaii; AADC requires clear evidence of outrageous discrimination | Court: Arlington Heights applies; Plaintiffs sufficiently plead discriminatory intent and procedural/departure evidence; constitutional claims proceed |
| Stay pending Ramos appeal | Defendants: Stay appropriate to await Ninth Circuit resolution and avoid duplicative litigation | Plaintiffs: Prejudice and interest in proceeding | Court: Denied stay—plaintiffs' interest and minimal defendant burden weigh against stay |
Key Cases Cited
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (statutory review bar interpreted to permit collateral procedural and constitutional challenges to agency practices)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (statute must clearly preclude judicial review of constitutional claims)
- Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action)
- F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency must provide reasoned explanation when changing policies)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard and required consideration of relevant factors)
- Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory intent in facially neutral government actions)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (limits on challenging selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion; high standard when executive prosecutorial decisions implicated)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (applied deferential review in national-security/entry context; court explains it does not control challenges to benefits for aliens lawfully in U.S.)