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