Vidal v. Nielsen
291 F. Supp. 3d 260
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Plaintiffs challenge DHS/DOJ decisions to rescind the DACA program and allegedly relax limits on use of DACA applicants' information for immigration enforcement; consolidated Batalla Vidal and State actions; preliminary injunction issues previously decided in plaintiffs' favor.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (substantive and procedural), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Fifth Amendment (equal protection and procedural due process), and claims about changes to DHS information-use policy.
- The DACA rescission was effected by an internal memorandum (the "DACA Rescission Memo"); Plaintiffs allege it is arbitrary and motivated by racial animus (primarily citing President Trump’s campaign and other statements).
- Defendants argue the rescission is discretionary policy (not a legislative rule), that notice-and-comment and RFA do not apply, and that Plaintiffs fail to plead discriminatory motive or cognizable due-process interests.
- Court rulings: substantive-APA challenge to rescission survives dismissal; procedural notice-and-comment and RFA claims dismissed; equal-protection claims survive dismissal; information-use policy claim dismissed as contradicted by attached USCIS FAQs; selective procedural-due-process claims by MRNY survive in part (late-day October 5 and erroneous clerical rejections) and fail in part (postal-delay and actual clerical-error categories).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive APA challenge to DACA rescission (arbitrary/capricious) | Rescission unlawfully arbitrary and capricious | Rescission is lawful exercise of discretionary authority | Denied dismissal — plaintiffs plausibly state substantive APA claim; survives 12(b)(6) |
| Procedural APA — notice-and-comment requirement | Rescission is a "legislative rule" requiring notice-and-comment | Rescission is a general policy/interpretive action exempt from notice-and-comment | Dismissed — memo treated as general statement of policy, not a legislative rule |
| Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim | DHS failed to analyze impact on small entities | RFA applies only when notice-and-comment rulemaking is required | Dismissed — RFA inapplicable because no notice-and-comment required |
| Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment) — discriminatory motive | Rescission was substantially motivated by anti-Latino/Mexican animus (campaign statements, disparate impact) | Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege discriminatory purpose or adequate effect evidence | Denied dismissal — plaintiffs plausibly plead disparate effect and circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive; claim survives pleading stage |
| Information-use policy (sharing DACA applicant data) | DHS changed policy to permit broader proactive sharing with ICE/CBP, increasing deportation risk | No policy change; attached USCIS FAQs state policy unchanged | Dismissed — plaintiffs’ allegation contradicted by document appended to complaint (Nov. 30 / Dec. 7 FAQs) |
| Procedural due process re: renewal denials (MRNY members) | USCIS arbitrarily rejected certain renewal requests (late-day Oct 5 deliveries; postal delays; minor/clerical error rejections) denying opportunity to be considered | DACA benefits are discretionary (no protected entitlement); agency remedies and reconsideration negate injury | Mixed: standing exists; due-process claim survives for late-day Oct 5 deliveries and misread/erroneous clerical rejections; fails for postal-delay arrivals and for actual incomplete submissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Noel v. Chapman, 508 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir. 1975) (distinguishing general policy statements from legislative rules)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (legislative rules affect individual rights and obligations)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for proving discriminatory purpose)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (Fifth Amendment prohibits federal racial discrimination)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) (agency not required to use notice-and-comment to issue or repeal interpretive rules)