University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name City of San Jose v. Trump IM-CA-0098
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-05329 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Take Care
Case Summary
This suit, brought on September 14, 2017, challenged President Trump's revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiff was the City of San Jose, and it argued that the rescission violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act ( ... read more >
This suit, brought on September 14, 2017, challenged President Trump's revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiff was the City of San Jose, and it argued that the rescission violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The City sought a declaration that rescinding DACA was unlawful, and an injunction to halt the rescission and any steps to deport DACA recipients.

The background leading up to this case was lengthy. In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program via 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 long as they met certain criteria. 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 acted within the next six months. As the complaint highlighted, the Obama administration 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.

In the complaint, San Jose noted that over a quarter of DACA recipients lived in California. The complaint emphasized that San Jose, the tenth-largest city in America, "has always been a place for immigrants[,] with almost 40% of its current population having been born in another country." San Jose further noted that the city employed many DACA recipients, and that the federal government's actions would cause San Jose to experience a significant loss of tax revenue and loss of experienced employees. San Jose alleged that DACA rescission violated Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by targeting individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their national origin without lawful justification. It also alleged that defendants had violated the APA by carrying out government action without first going through notice and comment.

The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on Sept. 14, and reassigned to Judge William Alsup on Sept. 21 after the case was related to Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 17-cv-05211), Garcia v. USA (No. 17-cv-5380), and State of California v. DHS (No. 17-cv-5235). The case was later related to County of Santa Clara v. Trump (No. 17-cv-05813).

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 ultimately 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 and an 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 ended on March 5, 2018.

On Nov. 16, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus, 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, holding that jurisdiction lied 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 would 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. On Dec. 21 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case. The Court held that the district court should have stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government's threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA was unreviewable because it was "committed to agency discretion," 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record." 583 U.S. ____ (2017). The same day, the district court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the district court denied the government's Nov. 1, 2017 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. The order indicated the court would separately deny the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the rescission. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who never before received deferred action. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on Jan. 12, dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims as well the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases).

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 16, 2018, and also sought certiorari from the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, arguing that the Supreme Court's immediate review was warranted because of how long the appeal would take in the Ninth Circuit and how time-sensitive the issue was. The Supreme Court denied certiorari without prejudice on Feb. 26, 2018, indicating the assumption of the justices "that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case."

The related cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit for the purposes of appeal. UC Regents, et al v. USA, et al, Case Number 18-80037 USCA 9th Circuit March 19, 2018. In February and March 2018, the parties and amici filed their briefs, which can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit (Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens) affirmed the district court's rulings on Nov. 8, 2018. The panel held that "DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion" and the government's belief that DACA was illegal was wrong. 2018 WL 5833232. Thus, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The panel also held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because it "promotes uniformity in immigration enforcement, and is necessary to provide the plaintiffs here with complete redress." Id.

The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5; that petition is still pending as of Feb. 17, 2019.

Julie Aust - 11/21/2017
Virginia Weeks - 11/08/2018
Sam Kulhanek - 02/17/2019
Eva Richardson - 05/18/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Constitutional rights
Employment
Legalization/Amnesty
Status/Classification
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Work authorization - criteria
Work authorization - procedures
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) President of the United States
Plaintiff Description The City of San Jose, on behalf of itself and on behalf of its DACA-recipient employees.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2017
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-0096 : State of California v. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0099 : Garcia v. United States of America (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106 : County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-NY-0055 : State of New York v. Trump (E.D.N.Y.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: 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-5329 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/11/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint For (1) Violation of Fifth Amendment Equal Protection and (2) Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 & 706(2)(D) [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0098-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/14/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Motion to Complete Administrative Record [ECF# 30] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order to Compile Supplement Forthwith [ECF# 31] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF# 33] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/19/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Filing of Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF# 34]
IM-CA-0098-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Joining Amicus Curiae Brief for United We Dream in Support of the Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Stay
IM-CA-0098-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief Amicus Curiae of Natural Resources Defense Council in Support of Real Parties in Interest-Plaintiffs [Ct. of App. ECF# 10640486]
IM-CA-0098-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-35]
IM-CA-0098-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Emergency Motion for Stay [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-36]
IM-CA-0098-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-37]
IM-CA-0098-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Emergency Motion to Stay [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-38]
IM-CA-0098-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-41]
IM-CA-0098-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
One-Month Continuance of Due Date For Augmented Administrative Record and Temporary Stay of Discovery [ECF# 52] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Supreme Court] [ECF# 63] (138 S.Ct. 443)
IM-CA-0098-0015.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying FRCP(b)(1) Dismissal and Granting Provisional Relief [ECF# 66] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP12(b)(6) [ECF# 71] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/12/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petition for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Motion to Hold Petition in Abeyance [Ct. of App. ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0098-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/19/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 199]
IM-CA-0098-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/08/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Alsup, William Haskell (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0002 | IM-CA-0098-0003 | IM-CA-0098-0004 | IM-CA-0098-0008 | IM-CA-0098-0016 | IM-CA-0098-0017 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Gould, Ronald Murray (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011
Kim, Sallie Court not on record [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011
Plaintiff's Lawyers Becerra, Xavier (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Berengaut, Alexander A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Berger, Justin Theodore (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Breuer, Lanny A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Carter-Oberstone, Max (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Chuang, Christine (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Cotchett, Joseph W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0001
Crowley, Megan Anne (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Danitz, Brian (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Davidson, Jeffrey Michael (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Doyle, Richard (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0001 | IM-CA-0098-9000
DuMont, Edward C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Fineman, Nancy L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Fretz, Rebekah A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Frimann, Nora Valerie (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Herman, Susan P. (Maine) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Lee, Ronald H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Lynch, Mark H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Mongan, Michael J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Newman, Michael L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Passe, Julianna F. (Minnesota) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Prevost, Tamarah P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Radez, Kathleen Vermazen (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Richards, Janill L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Shivpuri, Shubhra (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Sullivan, Steven M. (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Wright, Geoffrey H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012
Zahradka, James F. II (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0012 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bailey, Kate (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005
Mooppan, Hashim M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013 | IM-CA-0098-0018
Pezzi, Stephen M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005
Pulham, Thomas (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013 | IM-CA-0098-0018
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005 | IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013 | IM-CA-0098-0018
Rosenberg, Brad P. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Shumate, Brett (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Stern, Mark B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013 | IM-CA-0098-0018
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0005 | IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Tse, Alex G. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0018
Wright, Abby C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013 | IM-CA-0098-0018
Other Lawyers Chopra, Apalla U (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Gray, Danielle C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Karanjia, Peter (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0007
Leheny, Emma (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Sokoler, Jennifer B (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-9000
Wall, Michael Edwin (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0098-0006

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -