University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security IM-MD-0008
Docket / Court 1:18-cv-00239-MJG ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Attorney Organization NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Case Summary
On Jan. 24, 2018, the NAACP filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Represented by its own counsel, the NAACP challenged DHS's Nov. 2017 revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians living in ... read more >
On Jan. 24, 2018, the NAACP filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Represented by its own counsel, the NAACP challenged DHS's Nov. 2017 revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians living in the United States. The plaintiff alleged that DHS violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment by relying on stereotypes based on race and national origin to deprive Haitians of their rights. The plaintiff sought mandamus (for DHS to carry out the Immigration and Nationality Act's procedures for reviewing TPS) and a declaratory judgment. The case was assigned to Judge Marvin J. Garbis.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of DHS may find that a country's conditions temporarily prevent its nationals from safely returning, or that the country is unable to adequately handle the return of nationals. In such a situation, the Secretary may grant TPS to these nationals for 6 to 18 months, with a possible extension following a review of country conditions. TPS allows recipients to remain and work legally in the United States.

DHS had initiated TPS for Haitians following the Jan. 2010 earthquake in Haiti. After each 18-month period since then, DHS had reviewed the program, determined that Haitian nationals could not yet return safely (due to severe safety, health, housing, and infrastructure problems, exacerbated by subsequent hurricanes), and extended the program.

This policy, however, ended with DHS' termination of TPS for Haitians in Nov. 2017. The NAACP argued that DHS' decision to end the program was not based on a change in conditions in Haiti, but rather on racially discriminatory stereotypes of Haitians. These stereotypes allegedly appeared in President Trump's remarks that the plaintiffs claimed disparaged Haitians, and DHS' alleged search for evidence of Haitians' criminality and welfare dependence.

On Apr. 17, the NAACP filed an amended complaint, adding two other organizational plaintiffs that advocate for Haitians living in the U.S.

On May 7, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. The defendants argued that Congress had statutorily precluded judicial review of challenges to the Secretary's discretionary decisions regarding TPS designations. As to the plaintiffs' equal protection claims, the defendants argued that the rational basis standard of review applied and that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the Secretary's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

The case was reassigned to Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on July 24, 2018.

On March 12, 2019, Judge Chasanow filed an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. First, Judge Chasanow found that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. Next, she held that the plaintiffs had alleged a plausible claim for relief. Instead of rational basis review, Judge Chasanow found that the proper question was whether the government's decision to terminate TPS was motivated by impermissible race or national origin discrimination; if so, the action would be presumptively invalid and only upheld if it were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose. Consequently, Judge Chasanow held that it was appropriate to view any circumstantial evidence to find proof of discriminatory motive, and that the plaintiffs had provided such evidence, which was to be viewed in their favor at this stage. Judge Chasanow then dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for mandamus and declaratory relief, as their constitutional claim would provide them with full relief. 364 F.Supp.3d 568.

On April 8, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to stay or, in the alternative, to confine discovery to the administrative record. The defendants requested that the court stay this case pending final appellate review of the preliminary injunction issued in a parallel case, Ramos v. Nielsen (located here in this Clearinghouse).

In an April 26 order, Judge Chasanow informed the parties that if they could reach an agreement, discovery could be limited to what had already been produced by the government in other, parallel litigation.

On March 23, 2020, Judge Chasanow granted the defendants' motion to stay. Due to the interconnected nature of the parallel litigation, particularly related to the scope of permissible discovery, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Judge Chasanow concluded it was best to stay proceedings in this case while the other cases were litigated.

This case is ongoing.

Ava Morgenstern - 04/21/2018
Virginia Weeks - 07/25/2018
Sam Kulhanek - 05/14/2020


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
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Racial profiling
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Status/Classification
Temporary protected status
National Origin/Ethnicity
Other
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Race
Black
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description The NAACP, a civil rights organization
Indexed Lawyer Organizations NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filed 01/24/2018
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  New Lawsuit Filed Against U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Response to Removal of Temporary Protective Status for Haitian Immigrants
http://www.naacpldf.org
Date: Jan. 24, 2018
By: NAACP LDF
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:18-cv-00239-MJG (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0008-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
IM-MD-0008-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/24/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Statement [ECF# 30]
IM-MD-0008-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/17/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 67] (364 F.Supp.3d 568) (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0008-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/12/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Chasanow, Deborah K. (D. Md.) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0003 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Garbis, Marvin J. (D. Md.) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Asaka, Anson (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001
Audain, Raymond (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Berry, Bradford (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001
Craine, Khyla Danielle (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Haynes, Antonio M (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Ifill, Sherrilyn (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
James, Erika (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Johnson, Kristen (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Lee, Jin Hee (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Louard, Janette (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001
McClammy, James Irving (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
McClellan, Cara (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Merle, Natasha C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Nelson, Janai S. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002
Quereshi, Ajmel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Ross, Deuel (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Spital, Samuel (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-0001 | IM-MD-0008-0002 | IM-MD-0008-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Dugan, Joseph C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Kirschner, Adam D. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Other Lawyers Barrett, Shannon (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Carter, Margaret L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Greenblatt, Jonathan Lee (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Ryan, Christopher M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000
Suvor, Daniel R (California) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0008-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -