University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
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
Case Summary
This suit, brought on September 14, 2017, challenges President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiff is the City of San Jose, and it argued that the rescission violated Fifth Amendment due process and the Administrative Procedure Act. The City ... read more >
This suit, brought on September 14, 2017, challenges President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiff is the City of San Jose, and it argued that the rescission violated Fifth Amendment due process and the Administrative Procedure Act. The City sought declaratory relief that DACA rescission was unlawful, and injunctive relief against it, and against any steps to deport any DACA recipients.

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.

In the complaint, San Jose noted that over a quarter of DACA recipients live 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 employs many DACA recipients, and that the federal government's actions will 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 Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by carrying out government action without the process of 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 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.

Julie Aust - 11/21/2017
Virginia Weeks - 12/03/2017


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
Discrimination Prohibition
Retaliation Prohibition
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
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
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) President Donald J. Trump
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
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
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-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.)
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-5329 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2017
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] (E.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 [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-42]
IM-CA-0098-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Alsup, William Haskell (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098-0002 | IM-CA-0098-0003 | IM-CA-0098-0004 | IM-CA-0098-0008 | IM-CA-0098-9000
Gould, Ronald Murray (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011 | IM-CA-0098-0014
Kim, Sallie Court not on record [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0098-9000
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011 | IM-CA-0098-0014
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0098-0009 | IM-CA-0098-0011 | IM-CA-0098-0014
Plaintiff's Lawyers Becerra, Xavier (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Berengaut, Alexander A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Breuer, Lanny A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Carter-Oberstone, Max (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Chuang, Christine (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Cotchett, Joseph W. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0001
Crowley, Megan Anne (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Danitz, Brian (California)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Davidson, Jeffrey Michael (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Doyle, Richard (California)
IM-CA-0098-0001 | IM-CA-0098-9000
DuMont, Edward C. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Fineman, Nancy L. (California)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Fretz, Rebekah A. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Frimann, Nora Valerie (California)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Lee, Ronald H. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Lynch, Mark H. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Mongan, Michael J. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Newman, Michael L. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Prevost, Tamarah P. (California)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Radez, Kathleen Vermazen (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Richards, Janill L. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Shivpuri, Shubhra (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Wright, Geoffrey H. (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Zahradka, James F. II (California)
IM-CA-0098-0012
Defendant's Lawyers Leheny, Emma (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Mooppan, Hashim M. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Pulham, Thomas (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Rosenberg, Brad P. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Shumate, Brett (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-9000
Stern, Mark B. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Wright, Abby C. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0010 | IM-CA-0098-0013
Other Lawyers Karanjia, Peter (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0098-0007
Wall, Michael Edwin (California)
IM-CA-0098-0006

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -