Category Archives: Removal/Deportation

Guerra-Castaneda v. United States of America

Posted on by

Guerra-Castaneda v. United States of America, No. 1:22-cv-10711 (filed D. Mass. May 10, 2022) 

On May 10, 2022, the ACLU of New Hampshire along with Preti Flaherty LLP, filed this lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought damages based on an unlawful deportation by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in September 2019. Plaintiff was deported despite two federal court orders to keep him in the United States while his case for asylum was pending.

After Plaintiff was deported, he was detained in a prison in El Salvador for 297 days where he was tortured, experienced inhumane conditions, and endured physical and emotional trauma. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. On February 16, 2023, the district court denied Defendants’ motion and the case will proceed.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU of New Hampshire, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios PLLP

Contact: SangYeob Kim, ACLU of New Hampshire, SangYeob@aclu-nh.org.

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf

Posted on by

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02245 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 14, 2020)
J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01509 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020)

A recent series of cases have challenged the government’s invocation of rarely-used public health laws to restrict immigration by unaccompanied children and asylum seekers.

On March 20, 2020, President Trump announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would issue an order “to suspend the introduction of all individuals seeking to enter the U.S. without proper travel documentation” across the northern and southern borders. Would-be border crossers were to be “immediately return[ed]” to their country of origin “without delay.” To justify the order, the Administration invoked 42 U.S.C. § 265, a rarely-used provision dating back to 1893, which gives federal public-health authorities the ability to “prohibit . . . the introduction of persons or property” from designated places where “by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.” This restriction has come to be known as “Title 42.”

On March 20, 2020, CDC issued an interim final rule and an order directing the “immediate suspension of the introduction” of certain persons, including those seeking to enter the United States at ports of entry “who do not have proper travel documents,” “whose entry is otherwise contrary to law,” and “apprehended near the border seeking to unlawfully enter the United States.” Reports indicate that although CDC objected to the order, saying that there was no valid public-health justification for it, White House officials overrode those objections. Though CDC initially limited the order to thirty days, it has since extended the order indefinitely. On October 13, CDC issued final rules concerning its regulatory authority under § 265. CDC then issued a revised order pursuant to those rules. In February 2021, the Biden administration called for a review of the CDC order to determine if it was still needed or if modifications should be made, but on August 2, 2021, CDC issued a new order once again indefinitely extending application of Title 42.

The CDC order and regulations apply to unaccompanied children (who are entitled to special safeguards under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)) and people seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The ACLU, along with a number of ally organizations, have filed a series of lawsuits on behalf of unaccompanied children challenging their expulsion under the CDC’s directives, the two most significant of which are discussed below.

J.B.B.C.

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf challenged the unlawful expulsion of a sixteen-year-old Honduran boy pursuant to Title 42. J.B.B.C. was being held in a hotel awaiting expulsion when the ACLU and others filed a complaint and request for a temporary restraining order. Based on J.B.B.C.’s arguments that the Title 42 Process was not authorized by § 265, and that the CDC order conflicted with various Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions, Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from expelling J.B.B.C. Defendants then voluntarily took J.B.B.C. out of the Title 42 Process and transferred him to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody.

Another child similarly subject to expulsion under Title 42, E.Y., was later amended into the case. Hours after he was added, Defendants similarly took him out of the Title 42 Process. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed J.B.B.C.

P.J.E.S.

On August 14, 2020, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Oxfam America, and the ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia filed P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, a nationwide class action challenging the application of the Title 42 Process to unaccompanied children. On August 20, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for a classwide preliminary injunction. The district court judge then referred the case to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be provisionally granted and that the motion for classwide preliminary injunction be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Title 42 does not authorize summary expulsions and that if it were in fact read to permit expulsion of unaccompanied minors, it would conflict with statutory rights granted to them under the TVPRA and the INA.

On November 18, 2020, the court adopted the report, provisionally granting Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants moved for reconsideration on their request to stay the preliminary injunction and appealed the order to the DC Circuit. On December 3, the court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

On December 12, 2020, Defendants filed a notice advising the court that approximately 34 class members had been expelled from the United States, in contravention of the court’s injunction. These 34 were in addition to another 32 unaccompanied children expelled the same day the court granted the preliminary injunction.

On January 29, 2021, a motions panel of the D.C. Circuit stayed the P.J.E.S. preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.

In February 2021, CDC published a Notice of Temporary Exception from Expulsion of Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children under Title 42, and on July 16, 2021, CDC issued an order formally excepting unaccompanied minors from Title 42.  

On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an order holding Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction in abeyance pending further order of the court. The district court likewise granted the parties’ joint motion to hold the case in abeyance. On October 17, 2022, the D.C. Circuit issued an order terminating the abeyance, vacating the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether all or part of the case has become moot.

Note: Two other cases involving the treatment of unaccompanied minors under Title 42 include G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01511 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020) and Texas Civil Rights Project v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02035 (D.D.C., filed July 24, 2020).

Documents:

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf:

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Texas; ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; Texas Civil Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Oxfam America; ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia

Contact: Stephen Kang, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | skang@aclu.org

Press:

Wilbur P.G. v. United States

Posted on by

Wilbur P.G, et al., v. United States, No. 4:21-cv-04457 (N.D. Cal., filed June 10, 2021)

Plaintiffs are three families who were separated at the Arizona border in May 2018 under the Department of Justice’s Zero Tolerance policy. The parents were separated from their children while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody, under the guise of pursuing criminal prosecutions against the parents. Two parents were never criminally prosecuted, while the other parent was prosecuted for illegal entry—a misdemeanor—and served a three-day sentence in criminal custody.

After separating the children from their parents, CBP officers transferred the plaintiff children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The families were separated for weeks. While detained, one parent sustained lasting physical injuries after being denied medical attention. One of the children was sexually abused while in ORR custody.

The families sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover damages caused by the separation itself, as well as the physical and emotional injuries suffered by various plaintiffs during their time in detention.

Plaintiffs filed suit on June 10, 2021 in the Northern District of California. On January 5, 2022, Defendant United States filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona. Defendants also moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 10, 2022, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer and motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint; Defendant later amended the answer on July 29, 2022. As of February 2023, discovery is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area | Keker, Van Nest & Peters

Contact: Victoria Petty | vpetty@lccrsf.org

Press:

Note: Other family separation cases filed in California include:

  • I.T. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5333 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 20, 2022);
  • J.R.G. and M.A.R. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5183 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2022);
  • Rodriguez v. United States, 2:22-cv-2845 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 28, 2022);
  • A.F.P. v. United States, 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021);
  • Nunez Euceda v. United States, 2:20-cv-10793 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 25, 2020).

Other family separation cases filed in district courts in other states:

  • F.C.C. v. United States, 2:22-cv-5057 (E.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 25, 2022);
  • W.P.V. v. Cayuga Home for Children, Inc. and United States, 1:21-cv-4436 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 17, 2021);
  • C.D.A. v. United States, 5:21-cv-469 (E.D. Pa., filed Feb. 1, 2021);
  • R.Y.M.R v. United States, 1:20-cv-23598 (S.D. Fla., filed Aug. 28, 2020);
  • D.J.C.V. v. United States, 1:20-cv-5747 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 24, 2020).

For a list of District of Arizona family separation cases, consult the entry on C.M. v. United States.

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America

Posted on by

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America, No. 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021)

Plaintiff A.F.P. and his fifteen-year-old son J.F.C., both citizens of Honduras, approached Border Patrol agents near McAllen, Texas to seek asylum. Instead, Border Patrol agents separated J.F.C. from his father and detained both in a holding facility, often referred to as a hielera or “ice box” for its freezing cold temperatures. The hielera was cold and cramped, and the food provided was frozen and expired.

The two were only permitted to speak to each other for 30 minutes per day. Three days after the two were taken into custody, A.F.P. was charged with illegal entry and taken to federal criminal court. During A.F.P.’s court hearing, CBP and ICE officers designated J.F.C. as an unaccompanied minor, transferred his custody to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and moved him to a facility in New York. When A.F.P. returned to the detention center, his son was gone. The officers did not advise A.F.P. of the reason or destination of his son’s transfer.

In New York, J.F.C. resided at the Children’s Village facility, where he was not allowed to communicate with his father, was denied medical care, and was subject to emotional abuse. As a result of this neglect, J.F.C. suffers from hearing loss from an untreated ear infection and severe memory problems because of the trauma he experienced.

During this time, A.F.P. was held in ICE detention in Texas, where he had an interview with an asylum officer and was told he had a credible asylum case. After officers at the detention center put A.F.P. in touch with a notary public who led him to believe that pursuing his asylum case would keep him from reuniting with his son, A.F.P. withdrew his asylum application at his hearing in front of an immigration judge. He was then transferred to maximum security prisons and deported a month later. He was separated from his son for almost fifteen months. A human rights organization later helped A.F.P. lawfully re-enter the U.S. and reunite with J.F.C.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the federal government in the Eastern District of California, seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, negligence as to family separation, and negligence. Defendant United States moved to dismiss the claims and moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. On July 11, 2022, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action regarding J.F.C.’s time in ORR custody as barred by the independent contractor exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity.  On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the remaining claims. As of February 2023, discovery is currently underway.

Documents:

Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P.

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al.

Posted on by

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al., No. 1:21-cv-11571-IT (D. Mass., filed Sept. 24, 2021)

Plaintiffs Jane Doe and her two 10-year-old sons are citizens of Haiti who entered the United States in September 2021 to seek asylum. They were among the thousands of Haitians forced to remain for days under the Del Rio International Bridge. Later, Plaintiffs were transported to San Antonio, Texas to be processed for expulsion pursuant to Title 42. As of September 24, 2021, they remained in CBP custody, and their expulsion under Title 42 was believed to be imminent.

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that the U.S. government’s Title 42 expulsion policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 42, the Administrative Procedure Act, the U.S. Constitution (equal protection and due process), and the United States’ nonrefoulement duty under international law. Plaintiffs request, among other things, that the court enjoin their expulsion under Title 42 and order Defendants to process their asylum claims in accordance with the INA.

As of November 2021, the government released the clients into removal proceedings and paroled them. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed this case.

Documents:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint

Counsel: Amy Maldonado | Law Office of Amy Maldonado

Bridget Cambria | Cambria & Kline, P.C.

Susan B. Church | Demissie & Church

Contact: Amy Maldonado | 517-803-2870 | amy@amaldonadolaw.com

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States

Posted on by

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., filed Apr. 6, 2021); 21-40618 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 20, 2021); 22-40367 (5th Cir., filed Jun. 23, 2020)

On April 6, 2021, the State of Texas and the State of Louisiana commenced this action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of interim immigration enforcement priorities outlined in two memoranda issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (dated Jan. 20, 2021) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (dated Feb. 18, 2021). Noting DHS’s limited resources and inability to respond to all immigration violations, those memos announced that the agency would prioritize enforcement against individuals who are purported to pose a threat to national security, individuals apprehended at or near the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, and individuals convicted of an “aggravated felony” and recently released from criminal detention. Texas and Louisiana argue that these enforcement priorities are unlawful because:

(1) They violate the mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), as well as § 1231(a)’s requirement that noncitizens with final orders of removal be detained during the removal period;
(2) They unconstitutionally direct executive officials not to enforce federal immigration laws, in contravention of Article II’s “Take Care” Clause;
(3) They constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
(4) DHS and ICE issued the interim enforcement priorities without following the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA; and
(5) The memos were issued without adherence to the notice and consultation requirements contained in DHS’s cooperation agreements with Texas and Louisiana.

On August 19, 2021, the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, concluding that the memos violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA. It thus enjoined the government from following the interim priorities outlined in the challenged memos. The U.S. government then sought an emergency stay pending appeal as well as a temporary administrative stay. The Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay and heard oral argument on the motion for emergency stay pending appeal.

On September 15, 2021, the Fifth Circuit published its decision granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. While staying much of the injunction, the Fifth Circuit left narrow portions of the order in place. Specifically, the court declined to stay the injunction only insofar as it restrained the Biden Administration from using the Priorities Memos to guide the discretion of immigration officials in deciding whether to release two specific categories of immigrants: (1) those subject to the mandatory provision under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1) against whom immigration officials have issued a detainer and (2) those with final removal orders and subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(2). The injunction is stayed pending appeal in all other respects.

On September 30, 2021, DHS completed its review of its policies and practices concerning immigration enforcement and issued a new memorandum establishing its revised enforcement priorities. The new guidance is set to become effective on November 29, 2021, thereby superseding the challenged interim priorities. In light of this development, the government filed a motion for abeyance on October 6, 2021, arguing that the case would likely become moot before the court reaches a decision on merits. The government requested that the court hold the case in abeyance until the new priorities go into effect, and also that the court stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of the motion.

Texas and Louisiana filed a response opposing the motion for abeyance as well as a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel had erred by misconstruing the relevant INA provisions and also by failing to evaluate whether the challenged memos violated the APA. The Fifth Circuit granted appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on February 11, 2022. In the district court proceedings, the States filed an amended complaint, alleging that DHS’s September 30 memorandum “suffers from the same legal infirmities” as its earlier memos. They also filed a motion to postpone the effective date of the recent memorandum, or, in the alternative, to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.

The district court case went to trial on February 23, 2022. After the bench trial and post-trial briefing, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order on June 10, 2022, finding the plaintiff states have proven their first four counts by a preponderance of the evidence, and finding that the states did not prove Count V with regard to lack of consultation of the individual states. The final judgment vacated the September 30, 2021, memorandum. The government filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on June 13, 2022. The Fifth Circuit denied a motion for stay pending appeal, and an application for a stay of judgment was filed with the Supreme Court on July 8, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the application for stay but construed the application as a petition for certiorari before judgment and granted the petition on July 21, 2022. The Fifth Circuit appeal was placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court case.

Documents:

Counsel: Brian M. Boynton, Jennifer B. Lowery, Sarah E. Harrington, H. Thomas Byron III, Michael Shih, and Sean Janda | U.S. Dep’t of Justice

Contact: Department of Justice

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez

Posted on by

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr-00026 (D. Nev., filed June 25, 2020); 21-10233 (9th Cir., filed August 20, 2021)

On June 25, 2020, Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez was indicted on one count of being a deported noncitizen present in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) (Section 1326). On October 19, 2020, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez moved to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that Section 1326 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, the law is unconstitutional; as such, the Court must dismiss the indictment.

In his briefing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented extensive historical evidence about the racist origins of Section 1326, including how it was first enacted at the height of the eugenics movement and how the “Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929” was conceived, drafted, and enacted by white supremacists out of a belief that the “Mexican race” would destroy the racial purity of the United States and that Mexicans were “poisoning the American citizen.” Although the statute was recodified in 1952, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that the 1952 reenactment did not cleanse Section 1326 of its racist origins and was likewise motivated by discriminatory intent. Moreover, he argued that Section 1326 disproportionally impacts Mexican and Latinx defendants, given that the overwhelming number of Border Patrol arrests along the southern border are of Mexicans or people of Latinx origin.

On January 22, 2021, the Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss, and on February 2, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented the testimony of two experts. Professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez, an expert on policing in immigration and criminalization of migration, testified extensively on the racist origins of the 1929 act and that “the illegal re-entry provision of the 1929 law was intended to target Latinos.” Professor Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, an expert on political science, immigration policy, race, and public policy, testified to the historical link between the 1929 and 1952 codifications. Following the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez submitted a post-hearing brief outlining for the Court how the 1952 recodification of Section 1326 made illegal reentry penalties even harsher and expanded grounds for deportation, all with the knowledge of the law’s disparate impact and over a presidential veto calling out the bill’s racism. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez explained that the 1952 Congress did not reenact the illegal reentry provision despite its racist origins – it reenacted it because of them. In light of these facts, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued he had met his burden under the Arlington Heights test.

On August 18, 2021, the court issued an order granting Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s motion to dismiss, finding that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose, the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, and that because the government failed to show that Section 1326 would have been enacted absent racial animus, Section 1326 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As such, the court ordered the United States to dismiss Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s indictment and release him from federal custody. 

On August 19, 2021, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on December 8, 2022, and a decision is still pending.

Documents:

Counsel: Federal Public Defender of Nevada

Contact: Lauren Gorman, Assistant Federal Public Defender | Lauren_Gorman@fd.org

Texas and Missouri v. Biden

Posted on by

Texas & Missouri v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-00067-Z (N.D. Tex., filed Apr. 13, 2021); 21-10806 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 16, 2021; 23-10143 (5th Cir., filed Feb. 14, 2023)

Within hours after President Biden’s inauguration, the Biden administration suspended new enrollments into the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico program (also known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols” or “MPP”), which forcibly returned certain people seeking asylum at the southern U.S. border to Mexico, where they had to survive dangerous conditions during the pendency of their immigration proceedings in U.S. immigration courts. The program was notoriously a humanitarian disaster – as a result of the policy, people seeking asylum were murdered, raped, kidnapped, extorted, and compelled to live in squalid conditions. They also faced significant procedural barriers to meaningfully presenting their legal claims for protection.

On April 13, 2021, the states of Texas and Missouri (Plaintiffs) filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the Biden administration’s January 2021 statement suspending new enrollments into MPP “functionally end[ed] the MPP” program and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) given the “huge surge of Central American migrants, including thousands of unaccompanied minors, passing through Mexico in order to advance meritless asylum claims at the U.S. border.” Plaintiffs also argued that the Biden Administration’s decision to suspend MPP violated both the Constitution and an agreement between Texas and the federal government.

On May 14, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. However, before the briefing was complete, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new memo on June 1, 2021 formally terminating MPP. The court concluded that the June 1 memorandum mooted Plaintiffs’ original complaint (which had focused on the January 2021 pronouncement), but allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and file a new motion seeking to enjoin the June 1 memo. Plaintiffs did so. On June 25, 2021, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on June 30, 2021.

On July 22, 2021, the district court held a consolidated hearing and bench trial on the merits, and the parties then filed supplemental briefs on the scope of relief available to Plaintiffs. On August 13, 2021, the district court issued an order concluding that Plaintiffs were entitled to relief on both their APA and statutory claims and issued a nationwide injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the June 1 memo, vacating the June 1 memo in its entirety, and ordering Defendants “to enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all [noncitizens] subject to mandatory detention under Section 1255 without releasing any [noncitizens] because of a lack of detention resources.” The court’s reasoning was rooted in a mistaken understanding of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and its determination that MPP “demonstrated operational effectiveness” — a finding based on Trump Administration statements and flawed data analysis and which ignored hundreds of pages of record evidence detailing the dangers MPP respondents had experienced in Mexico.

The district court stayed its order for seven days to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the Fifth Circuit. On August 16, 2021, the Biden administration sought an additional stay from the district court, which the district court summarily denied two days later. The Biden administration then appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The American Immigration Council, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, Human Rights First, and Southern Poverty Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of the government, asking the Fifth Circuit to prevent the reinstatement of MPP and arguing that the district court’s order rests on inaccurate facts about the purported effectiveness of MPP in deterring migration and reducing meritless asylum claims. The ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed a separate amicus brief in support of the government primarily focusing on the district court’s misinterpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).

On August 19, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied the government’s request for a stay in a published decision that wholly adopted as true the Trump administration’s claims about the effectiveness of MPP in deterring migration and ignored the mountainous evidence refuting such claims. The decision, however, stated that the administration does not have to restart MPP at any particular time, just “in good faith” (without defining the term) and clarified that the government “can choose to detain” someone in accordance with § 1225, so long as the government does not “simply release every [noncitizen] described in § 1225 en masse into the United States.”

On August 20, 2021, the Biden administration filed an application to stay the district court’s injunction and for an emergency administrative stay with the Supreme Court. That same day – just minutes before the injunction was to go into effect – Justice Alito granted an emergency stay of the injunction until 11:59 pm EDT on August 24, 2021, to allow the full Court to consider the application. On August 23, 2021, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of the stay application, again addressing the lower courts’ deeply flawed premise that the federal government must subject all people seeking asylum apprehended at the border to mandatory detention or return them to Mexico under MPP.

On August 24, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the government’s stay request in a 6-3 decision, stating that “[t]he applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious.” The decision, however, did not endorse the states’ incorrect claims that the government is actually required to return people to Mexico under the immigration statutes. That same day, DHS issued a statement saying that the Department “respectfully disagrees with the district court’s decision,” have appealed that order, and “will continue to vigorously challenge it.” However, the Department stated that “[a]s the appeal process continues . . . DHS will comply with the order in good faith.”

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff States filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction and expedite discovery, citing delayed implementation of MPP and bad faith on the part of the government. The federal government responded that Plaintiff States had not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the government is not acting in good faith to implement the injunction. The federal government filed their reply at the Fifth Circuit on October 19, 2021.

On October 29, 2021, DHS issued a memorandum terminating MPP again. In light of the termination memo, the administration filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. Biden stating that the appeal of the injunction requiring them to re-start MPP in good faith was now moot and requesting that the court vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and remand or, alternatively, to stay the appeal while the case is remanded. On November 1, 2021, the states filed an opposition to the administration’s claim of mootness and request for vacatur or stay and remand, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments from both parties the following day.

On November 18, 2021, the district court issued an opinion granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, allowing for limited discovery but denying Plaintiffs’ request to implement MPP in the same manner. On December 21, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court’s judgment and refusing to vacate the injunction. The Biden administration petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision on June 30, 2022. The Supreme Court held, as an initial matter, that the district court’s injunction violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). Further, the Court held that the government’s recission of the MPP program did not violate section 1225 of the INA.

The Fifth Circuit then remanded the action to the Northern District of Texas on August 6, 2022. The Defendants moved to vacate the permanent injunction, and the district court vacated the injunction on August 8, 2022. Following the district court’s decision vacating the injunction, DHS announced that it will no longer enroll new individuals in MPP, and will disenroll individuals currently in MPP when they return for their next scheduled court date.

On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, along with a motion to “postpone the effective date” of the October 29 memo rescinding MPP under the APA. The district court set a discovery and briefing schedule for the motion to postpone. The Defendants produced the relevant administrative record and filed a response in opposition to the motion to stay agency action on September 2, 2022. Briefing on the motion to stay agency action–including surreplies by both parties—was completed on September 20, 2022.

On December 15, 2022, the district court stayed the October 29 memo and the decision to terminate MPP pending the resolution of the merits of the claim. On February 13, 2023, Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

Documents:

Compliance Reports:

DHS Memorandum:

Counsel for Amicus: ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; ACLU Foundation of Texas; American Immigration Council; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Human Rights First; Southern Poverty Law Center

I.M. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

I.M. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 1:20-cv-3576-DLF (D.D.C., filed Dec. 11, 2020) and No. 22-5071 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 18, 2022)

I.M. is a sustainable agriculture entrepreneur and founder of a nonprofit organization that promotes sustainable farming who came to the United States on a B-1 visa to learn more about sustainable agricultural practices. Despite having been admitted for this purpose in 2019, when he attempted to reenter the country in 2020 on a valid B-1 visa he was detained on erroneous grounds by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, who unilaterally decided to revoke I.M.’s visa and expel him from the country under the expedited removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). At no point did I.M. have an opportunity to obtain judicial review of CBP’s legally and factually incorrect decisions to detain him, revoke his visa, and deny him admission to the country.

On December 11, 2020, I.M. filed a habeas petition and complaint against federal government defendants, including CBP, seeking vacatur of his removal order and reinstatement of his B-1 visa. I.M. argued that an unappointed CBP employee exercising unreviewed, unilateral discretion to revoke his visa and remove him violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The Appointments Clause requires that federal government officials who exercise significant authority be appointed by the President or, with Congress’s authorization, by a Head of Department or a court of law. I.M. claims that the decisions of CBP employees to unilaterally order removal under the expedited removal statute are void unless those employees were appointed consistent with the requirements of the Appointments Clause.

The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and petition on jurisdictional grounds in late February 2021. On January 1, 2022, the court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in a sealed opinion. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the D.C. Circuit. Briefing is complete and the D.C. Circuit held oral arguments on January 25, 2023. A decision is pending.

Counsel: Democracy Forward Foundation, National Immigrant Justice Center, Latham & Watkins

Contact: Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, mfleming@heartlandalliance.org

Additional links:
• NIJC, DHS and CBP Sued for Unconstitutionally Allowing Unappointed Border Employees to Deport Immigrants (Dec. 11, 2020).

Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor

Posted on by

Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., No. 1:21-cv-0100 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 12, 2021); 21-05200 (D.C. Cir., filed Sep. 17, 2021); 22-05325 (Sup. Ct., filed Dec. 19, 2022)

On January 21, 2021, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Legal Services, Oxfam America, and the ACLU of the District of Colombia filed Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., a class action on behalf of noncitizens who arrive in the United States as a family unit of at least one child and that child’s parent or legal guardian and are subject to Title 42. The named plaintiffs are three parents and their minor children who sought asylum in the United States. In January 2021, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all noncitizens who “(1) are or will be in the United States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit composed of at least one child under 18 years old and that child’s parent or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be subjected to the Title 42 Process.” Plaintiffs also filed a series of emergency motions to stay the removal of the named petitioners. In February, the district court granted the stays of removal over the government’s objections.

On February 5, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from applying the Title 42 Process to members of the putative class. On February 23, 2021, the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to hold in abeyance the motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction. The case was held in abeyance until August 2, 2021, while the parties attempted to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 2, the parties jointly filed a motion to reset the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction, indicating their intent to resume litigation, and Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motions on August 11, 2021.

The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2021, enjoining Defendants from applying the Title 42 process, including the CDC’s August 2021 order, to class members. The court agreed that the government’s policy was not authorized by statute and that class members would face “real threats of violence and persecution” if returned to their home countries. The government appealed the order to the D.C. Circuit the following day. On September 30, 2021, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal, and as such, the preliminary injunction did not go into effect.

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in part, holding that the government may expel Plaintiffs, but only to places where they will not be persecuted or tortured. As a result, the preliminary injunction is now in effect. The court of appeals remanded the case to the district court to decide in the first instance whether the Title 42 expulsion rule is arbitrary and capricious.

On remand, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for partial summary judgment. On November 15, 2022, the district court issued an order holding that the U.S. government acted arbitrarily and capriciously in instituting the Title 42 policy and enjoined Defendants from continuing to apply the policy. The court granted Defendants’ request to stay the injunction until December 21, 2022.

On November 21, 2022, the states of Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, and 12 other states filed a motion to intervene with the district court. Shortly after, on December 7, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s final judgment. Given the appeal, the district court deferred on the motion to intervene, and Arizona, et al. filed a motion to intervene with the D.C. Circuit, along with a motion to stay the trial court’s decision pending appeal. The D.C. Circuit denied the motion to stay on December 9, 2022, and deferred the ruling on the motion to intervene.

On December 19, 2022, Arizona, et al. filed an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay pending certiorari along with a petition for a writ of certiorari. That same day the Supreme Court stayed the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to end Title 42 and ordered the parties’ responses be filed on December 20, 2022. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 27, 2022 to determine whether the state applicants may intervene to challenge the district court’s summary judgment order.  The Supreme Court’s review is limited to the question of intervention by the states.

The parties filed their briefs and the Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for March 1, 2023. On January 30, 2023, the White House issued a statement of administration policy ending the COVID national emergency and public health emergency declarations on May 11, 2023. On February 16, 2023, the Supreme Court removed the case from the February 2023 argument calendar.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Texas; ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; Texas Civil Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Oxfam America; ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia

Contact: Stephen Kang, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | skang@aclu.org

Additional Links: