On Mar. 23, 2018, three Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients from El Salvador, as well as the immigrants' rights organization Casa de Maryland which has many Salvadorian members, filed this lawsuit. Represented by the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and the private law firm Akin Gump Strauss, the plaintiffs challenged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s recent revocation of TPS for Salvadorians living in the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.

Under the INA, the Secretary of Homeland Security may find that a country's conditions temporarily prevent its nationals from returning safely, 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 six to eighteen 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 Salvadorians following a devastating earthquake in that country in 2001 respectively. After each 18-month period since then, DHS had reviewed the program, determined that the nationals could not yet return safely to El Salvador (due to severe safety, health, housing, and infrastructure problems, exacerbated by subsequent natural disasters), and extended the program.

This policy, however, ended with DHS's Jan. 2018 announcement that it would soon terminate TPS for Salvadorians, effective Sept. 2019. The plaintiffs argued that DHS's decision to end the program was based not on a change in conditions in El Salvador, but rather on invidious discrimination toward Latino immigrants on the basis of race, ethnicity, and/or national origin. This racial animus allegedly appeared in President Trump's public remarks disparaging Latin American immigrants. The plaintiffs also argued that DHS's action was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

This case was assigned to Judge George Jarrod Hazel.

On Nov. 28, 2018, the court (Judge Hazel) largely denied DHS' motion to dismiss. 355 F.Supp.3d 307. The court held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the TPS statute did not bar the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that the statute's language and scheme did not unambiguously preclude judicial review, and that the alternative methods of review of the plaintiffs' claims that DHS offered were meaningless. The court upheld the plaintiffs' equal protection claim, finding that the court owed the government less deference in this case and that President Trump's clearly racist statements regarding Latino immigrants provided sufficient evidence to make the claim plausible. For similar reasons, the court also upheld the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim. The court upheld the APA claim in so far as it alleged the government's actions were arbitrary and capricious because they were motivated by racial discrimination and because the government failed to conduct an objective assessment of El Salvador's conditions. But the court dismissed the APA claim in so far as it alleged the government's actions were arbitrary and capricious because the government did not consider the reliance interests of those implicated. The court concluded that the TPS statute did not require the government to make such considerations. Finally, the court kept President Trump as a defendant, concluding that although "ultimately, relief against the President himself is extraordinarily unlikely in this case, none of the authority cited by Defendants requires that the President be dismissed at this early stage."

DHS then filed its answer to the complaint on December 12, 2018. In light of the TPS termination date of September 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for a scheduling order to resolve the dispute before then. They argued the protection of the Ramos v. Nielsen preliminary injunction issued in the Northern District of California was insufficient, as the government had appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit. DHS opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion to stay the litigation until the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on the Ramos preliminary injunction. Both parties filed a series of responses. With the government shutdown, DHS moved to stay proceedings because of a lapse in appropriations. The court granted the DHS’ second motion on January 8, 2019, and stayed proceedings until after the government reopened.

By the end of the month, DHS had received funding, and the plaintiffs sought to amend their proposed scheduling order. Following a conference, the court ordered its schedule and the parties proceeded to discovery. Since then, the parties have pursued discovery.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security in which the Court held that the APA required the government to consider reliance interests before rescinding DACA, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's dismissal of their APA claim. The plaintiffs argued that the court previously dismissed the APA claim because it declined to consider the plaintiff's theory that the defendants failed to consider reliance interests when deciding whether to extend or terminate TPS and that this ruling now conflicted with Regents. As of December 23, 2020, the case is ongoing and the motion for reconsideration remains pending.

the case is still ongoing as of July 24, 2020.

Ava Morgenstern - 04/08/2018
Virginia Weeks - 12/01/2018
Erica Lignell - 07/24/2020
Emily Kempa - 12/23/2020


compress summary