University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security IM-MD-0006
Docket / Court 8:17-cv-02942-RWT ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Attorney Organization Washington Lawyers' Committee
Case Summary
This suit, begun on October 5, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are a group of nonprofit organizations and DACA recipients who seek to enjoin the federal government from ending the program. Not only do the plaintiffs ... read more >
This suit, begun on October 5, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are a group of nonprofit organizations and DACA recipients who seek to enjoin the federal government from ending the program. Not only do the plaintiffs stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that the rescission is motivated by discriminatory animus toward individuals from Mexico and Central America. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment.

In 2012, the Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security created the DACA program by issuing a series of policy changes. 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 include a series of nonprofit organizations devoted to civil rights, and in particular immigrant rights. The plaintiffs also include individuals who came to the U.S. as children from various nations in South America. Some are students, others are working, and still others have started families in the U.S. They argued that the DACA rescission will lead to loss of work authorization and many vital benefits, loss of the ability to attend college, risk of deportation, breaking up of families. Further, the plaintiffs highlighted that the government has issued "guidance suggesting an intention to welch on those promises and to share that information with ICE and CBP."

The case was assigned to Judge Roger W. Titus.

On Nov. 15, the government moved to dismiss the case. The court denied in part and granted in part the government's motion to dismiss on Mar. 5.

The court enjoined the government from using or sharing information provided by DACA applicants through the DACA program for enforcement or deportation purposes. The court granted the plaintiffs' estoppel claim, finding that there would be "substantial risk for irreparable harm." The court ordered that if the government "needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or some purpose implicating public safety or public interest," it could petition the court for permission on a case-by-case basis. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35373.

The court also declared that the DACA rescission memo was valid and constitutional. The court found that the memo "neither curtails DHS’s discretion regarding individual immigration reviews, nor does it prevent the agency from granting Dreamers deferred action status again in the future," making "DACA and its rescission...more akin to non-binding policy statements...not subject to notice-and-comment requirements" under the APA. The court also found that the decision to rescind DACA was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA, "but rather was a carefully crafted decision supported by the Administrative Record...[I]t is irrelevant whether this Court, a judge in California or New York, or even a justice on the Supreme Court might have made a different decision while standing in the shoes of DHS." Because the government rescinded the program under the "reasonable belief that DACA was unlawful, the decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner was rational." 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35373.

Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Equal Protection and Due Process claims. The court found no merit in the equal protection claim because the executive branch was fulfilling its duty to enforce the law in rescinding DACA, there was no affirmative showing of bad faith, and a facially valid motive to rescind was sufficient. The court also found that DACA did not create any due process entitlements nor did it curtail DHS' discretion in individual immigration reviews. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35373.

The court ordered the case closed. The government then expressed uncertainty about the scope of the injunction, and on Mar. 12, the court directed the parties to collaborate to reach agreement on the specifics of implementing the injunction. On Mar. 15, the court approved the parties' joint proposed textual revisions.

On April 27, 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit.

The case is ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 10/08/2017
Virginia Weeks - 03/16/2018


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
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
General
Juveniles
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Asylum - criteria
Asylum - procedure
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - judicial review
Deportation - procedure
Family
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Status/Classification
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description Nonprofit civil rights organizations and individual DACA recipients
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Washington Lawyers' Committee
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
None
Source of Relief Litigation
None
Order Duration 2018 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
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
[ 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)
8:17-cv-2942 (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/05/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-MD-0006-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 42]
IM-MD-0006-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/05/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Titus, Roger W. (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0006-0002 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Aiyar, Priya R. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-9000
Bower, Elizabeth J. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Clark, Kevin B. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Corkery, Dennis A. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Flores, Gaela K. Gehring (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001
Freedman, John A. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Handley, Matthew K. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Karpatkin, Jeremy (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001
Katz, Nicholas (Maryland)
IM-MD-0006-0001
Mayer, Steven L. (California)
IM-MD-0006-0001
Perkins, Nancy L. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Quereshi, Ajmel (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Schechter, Ronald A. (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-0001 | IM-MD-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Davis, Kathryn Celia (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-9000
Shumate, Brett (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-9000
Westmoreland, Rachael (District of Columbia)
IM-MD-0006-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -