University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name County of Santa Clara v. Trump IM-CA-0106
Docket / Court 5:17-cv-05813 ( 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 October 10, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are Santa Clara County and a labor union representing thousands of county employees, and they seek to enjoin the government from ending the program. ... read more >
This suit, brought on October 10, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are Santa Clara County and a labor union representing thousands of county employees, and they seek to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only do the DACA recipients stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that their employers and communities stand to lose the benefits these recipients provide to them. 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 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.

Plaintiff Santa Clara stated that 38% of its residents are born outside of the U.S., and that its high immigrant population means DACA’s rescission will be particularly harmful to the county. The other plaintiff, Service Employees International Union Local 521 (“Local 521”), is a labor union that represents over 10,000 individuals employed by Santa Clara county. Local 521 joined the suit to protect the rights of its current and future members, and to act on their behalf. The plaintiffs argued that DACA recipients have come to rely on the program and on the assurances their private application information will not be used against them, but that both their ability to gain and keep important benefits and be safe from deportation risk are now in danger. The plaintiffs further argued that the government did not provide sound rationale for its decision to rescind DACA, and that this decision was clearly driven by racial animus.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. On Oct. 16, the case was related to the other DACA cases under Judge William Alsup. This case was also reassigned to him. The related cases are: State of California v. Department of Homeland Security (17-cv-05235), Garcia v. United States of America (17-cv-05380), City of San Jose v. Trump (17-cv-05329) and Regents of University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security (17-cv-05211).

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. On Oct. 18, the defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court declined to enter a stay 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.

Virginia Weeks - 10/11/2017
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
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Disparate Treatment
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - judicial review
Deportation - procedure
Employment
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Temporary protected status
Work authorization - criteria
Work authorization - procedures
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
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 Santa Clara County and a labor union
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
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-0099 : Garcia v. United States of America (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0095 : Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098 : City of San Jose v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096 : State of California v. Department of Homeland Security (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)
5:17-cv-05813 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0106-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Lloyd, Howard R. (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brown, Eric (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Leyton, Stacey M. (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Quinones, Marcelo (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Trice, Laura Susan (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Weissglass, Jonathan (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000
Williams, James R. (California)
IM-CA-0106-0001 | IM-CA-0106-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -