Plaintiffs--young undocumented immigrants residing in Arizona--filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Nov. 29, 2012. Represented by the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, plaintiffs claimed that the state was invalidly denying them drivers' licenses, despite their eligibility under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Plaintiffs claimed that the Arizona Executive Order that denied them drivers' licenses violated both the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause; they sought a declaration that the state action was invalid, and an injunction providing them drivers' licenses.

Plaintiffs also petitioned for certification of a class in their complaint, including all young immigrants residing in Arizona who had been granted deferred action, or would be, pursuant to the DACA program and had (or would have) employment authorization documents (EADs) and Social Security Numbers, who were being denied drivers' licenses by the Arizona Motor Vehicles Division.

On Dec. 14, 2012, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On Jan. 9, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The District Court (Judge David Campbell) heard oral arguments for both motions on Mar. 22, 2013, and issued an order on May 16, 2013. Judge Campbell denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on the grounds that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Supremacy Clause claim, and that, although plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection claim, they did not show the likelihood of irreparable injury for the claim. Judge Campbell accordingly granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part as to the Supremacy Clause claim and denied in part as to the Equal Protection claim. 945 F.Supp.2d 1049 (D. Ariz. May 16, 2013). Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 17, 2013.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2013, adding two individual plaintiffs and removing the class action claims. In all other respects, the amended complaint essentially reiterated the original complaint, alleging violations of the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

On Mar. 26, 2013, Judge Campbell issued an order dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. The case then spent a long time in discovery. On Apr. 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim and for a permanent injunction.

On July 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Harry Pregerson) issued an opinion as to the interlocutory appeal, granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction, prohibiting defendants from enforcing any policy by which the Arizona Department of Transportation refused to accept plaintiffs' EADs, issued under DACA, as proof that plaintiffs were authorized under federal law to be present in the United States. 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014). On Nov. 24, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied the state's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on Dec. 9, 2014 denied a stay pending the state's petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

On Dec. 11, 2014, the state sought a stay from the Supreme Court, pending its cert. petition; the Court rejected that stay on Dec. 17, in an order issued without opinion. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito noted that they would grant the stay.

Following this, District Judge Campbell issued a preliminary injunction on Dec. 18, 2014. He then held a Jan. 7, 2015 hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction and summary judgment and on defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On Jan. 22, 2015, Judge Campbell granted plaintiffs' motion and denied defendants'. The final judgment permanently enjoined defendants from refusing to issue drivers' licenses to DACA recipients by rejecting their EADs as proof of their authorization under federal law to be present in the United States. In his order, Judge Campbell held that for purposes of Equal Protection, defendants had classified DACA recipients differently from other holders of EADs who could obtain drivers' licenses and that such differential treatment of similarly situated persons did not survive rational-basis review. Plaintiffs had suffered irreparable harm by losing job opportunities because they lacked drivers' licenses. 81 F.Supp.3d 795 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2015).

Defendants then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After oral argument on July 16, 2015, the panel (Circuit Judges Pregerson, Berzon, and Christen) asked the parties for further briefing on issues of preemption, the separation of powers doctrine, and the Take Care Clause. The United States, at the Court's invitation, submitted an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs on Aug. 28, 2015.

The Ninth Circuit then issued an opinion on Apr. 5, 2016, affirming the District Court's order. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's Equal Protection holding. But the Ninth Circuit chose to use the constitutional avoidance principle to reach the same result without finding a constitutional violation. The court thus held that defendants' classification policy for issuing drivers' licenses violated the INA by using an independent definition of "authorized presence," and it was thus preempted by exclusive federal authority to classify noncitizens. 818 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2016).

Defendants requested an en banc rehearing, but the Court denied this request in a Feb. 2, 2017 order (Circuit Judges Kozinski and others dissenting). 855 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2017).

Defendants then requested a stay while they petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for cert. The Ninth Circuit granted a stay on Feb. 13, 2017, and defendants filed the petition on Mar. 29, 2017.

In the interim, on Sept. 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced plans to rescind DACA. But a district court in Regents of the University of California enjoined this move on Jan. 9, 2018, and the government sought cert from the U.S. Supreme Court. On Jan. 22, 2018, in this case, defendants notified the U.S. Supreme Court of the relation between the two cert. petitions. On Feb. 14, 2018, in the Supreme Court, the U.S. filed an amicus brief.

On Mar. 19, the Supreme Court denied cert. in this case. On Apr. 6, the Ninth Circuit issued an order lifting the stay and causing its April 2016 judgment to take effect.

The case is closed.

Dan Osher - 03/31/2013
Zhandos Kuderin - 07/07/2014
Ava Morgenstern - 03/19/2018
Peter Harding - 02/13/2020


compress summary