University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name State of California v. Department of Homeland Security IM-CA-0096
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-05235-MEJ ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
This suit, brought on September 11, 2017, challenges President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs were several states who alleged that DACA provided invaluable protections to young people across the state, allowing them to pursue education and ... read more >
This suit, brought on September 11, 2017, challenges President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs were several states who alleged that DACA provided invaluable protections to young people across the state, allowing them to pursue education and jobs. In turn, they have contributed to state economies and educational experiences of students in state school systems. The complaint argued that the government's decision violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The plaintiffs sought equitable estoppel to prevent the government from divulging DACA recipients personal information as well as an order from the court enjoining the government from rescinding the program.

In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program by DHS policy statements. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless congress acts within the next six months. As the complaint highlights, the Obama administration in promoting DACA made key promises to immigrants: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement, and that barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits.

The plaintiffs are the states of California, Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland. The complaint noted that California in particular was home to more DACA recipients than any other state in the country (over 200,000). The states argued that rescinding DACA "violates fundamental notions of justice" by leaving recipients without access to jobs and making them vulnerable to deportation. The complaint also alleged that DACA recipients were required to divulge confidential information in order to apply for the program, including information about their immigration status and address. Recipients were previously assured that the information would be kept confidential. By revoking DACA, plaintiffs argued that the government created a "confusing and threatening situation" in which that private information is at risk of being used against recipients in future immigration proceedings.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on Sept. 11 and reassigned to Judge Hon. William Alsup on Sept. 18 after it was related to Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 17-cv-05211). The cases were subsequently related to Garcia v. USA (No. 17-cv-5380), City of San Jose v. Trump, (No. 17-cv-5329), and County of Santa Clara v. Trump (No. 17-cv-5823).

On Oct. 6, in a related challenge led by Regents of University of California before this judge, the government filed the administrative record, available here, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception to the decision to rescind it. On Oct. 17, after the University in the related case moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so in all related cases, including this one. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission, specifically related documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court on Oct. 18 in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court denied staying proceedings on Oct. 19, and the defendants appealed the next day by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the district court and and emergency motion for stay. On Oct. 23, the district court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until the DACA ends on March 5, 2018.

On Nov. 16, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered, and the District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by Nov 22. On Nov. 17, the federal government filed an emergency motion noting that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the Supreme Court no later than Nov. 20, and requesting that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the forthcoming petition. On Nov. 21, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction currently lies with the District Court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus.

Meanwhile, in the District Court, Judge Alsup on Nov. 20 agreed to stay all discovery until Dec. 22, at which point the augmented administrative record will be due.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the government filed notice that they appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court.

The case is ongoing.

Jamie Kessler - 09/25/2017
Virginia Weeks - 12/03/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Juveniles
Records Disclosure
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - judicial review
Deportation - procedure
Family
Legalization/Amnesty
Temporary protected status
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Language
Spanish
Plaintiff Type
State Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description States of California, Maine, and Minnesota
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0095 : Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0099 : Garcia v. United States of America (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098 : City of San Jose v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106 : County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:17-cv-5235 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0096-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/11/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Relating Cases [ECF# 18] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Relating Cases [ECF# 22] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Relating Cases [ECF# 23] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Motion to Complete Administrative Record [ECF# 39] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF# 42] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/19/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re Deposition of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Duke [ECF# 46] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Alsup, William Haskell (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096-0002 | IM-CA-0096-0003 | IM-CA-0096-0004 | IM-CA-0096-0005 | IM-CA-0096-0006 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Kim, Sallie Court not on record [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0096-0007 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Becerra, Xavier (California)
IM-CA-0096-0001
Chuang, Christine (California)
IM-CA-0096-9000
Frosh, Brian E. (Maryland)
IM-CA-0096-0001
Herman, Susan P. (Maine)
IM-CA-0096-0001 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Lee, Ronald H. (California)
IM-CA-0096-9000
Mills, Janet T. (Maine)
IM-CA-0096-0001
Newman, Michael L. (California)
IM-CA-0096-0001
Passe, Julianna F. (Minnesota)
IM-CA-0096-0001 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Radez, Kathleen Vermazen (California)
IM-CA-0096-9000
Shivpuri, Shubhra (California)
IM-CA-0096-9000
Sullivan, Steven M. (Maryland)
IM-CA-0096-0001 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Swanson, Lori (Minnesota)
IM-CA-0096-0001
Zahradka, James (California)
IM-CA-0096-0001 | IM-CA-0096-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Rosenberg, Brad P. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0096-9000
Shumate, Brett (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0096-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -