University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security IM-NY-0069
Docket / Court 1:19-cv-07777 ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
This case is one of several brought nationwide by States, counties, and nonprofit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include ... read more >
This case is one of several brought nationwide by States, counties, and nonprofit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. District court judges from across the countries granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the government from implementing the public charge rule but after multiple Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court issued stays of these injunctions, the public charge rule was implemented by the government on February 24, 2020.

On August 21, 2019, the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, along with the city of New York, filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff States sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Plaintiff States sought relief to declare the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule (the Rule) vacated due to violations of the APA and unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiff States also sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Rule from being enforced.

On August 14, 2019, the DHS published a revised, final public charge rule, which defines personal circumstances that affect the ability of individuals and their families to successfully enter the U.S. or acquire legal permanent resident status (i.e., get a green card). The final rule increases the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if an immigration officer finds that a person seeking a visa is likely to become a public charge, that person is “inadmissible.” Thus, an immigrant who uses non-cash benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid, or is deemed likely to receive them in the future, may be found more likely to be a public charge and inadmissible for purposes of a visa or green card application. The Plaintiff States asserted that the effect of this Rule would be to force immigrant families to choose between using these benefits or risk failing to gain permanent resident status.

The Plaintiff States further argued that because the Rule will drive families from using these benefits, the Rule is causing damage to the health and livelihood of immigrant families, undermining the sovereign interests of the Plaintiff States, and interfering in policies and systems designed to support the well-being and civil rights of residents. The Plaintiff States contended that the Rule exceeds the Defendant's jurisdiction and authority under the APA; is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff States filed a motion for preliminary injunction and stay pending judicial review, arguing they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims made in the complaint, and that preliminary relief is in the public interest. The Rule, unless prohibited, was set to go into effect on October 15, 2019. The Plaintiff States asserted that the Rule should not take effect while the legal action was still pending.

On September 27, 2019, the Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. The Defendants contended that the Rule is a "well-reasoned definition of public charge providing practical guidance to Executive Branch officials making public charge inadmissibility determinations" based on foundational principles of United States immigration law. The Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff States and City did not meet their burden of establishing standing, that they did not show an actual or imminent threat of harm as the result of the Rule. Although the Plaintiff States claimed that enforcement of the Rule would cause irreparable harm, the Defendants argued that those claims are not enough to establish standing. The Defendants further argued that the Motion should be dismissed because the Plaintiff States' substantive claims lack merit and because the Plaintiff States are outside the zone of interests regulated by the APA.

On October 11, 2019, Judge George Daniels granted the motion for preliminary injunction. First, Judge Daniels found that the Plaintiff States had standing, that their claims were ripe for judicial review, and that they were within the zone of interests regulated by the APA. Then, after analyzing the long-standing definition of the term public charge and whether Congress intended to redefine public charge, Judge Daniels found that the Plaintiff States sufficiently alleged that the Rule exceeds statutory authority and is contrary to law. Judge Daniels also ruled that the Plaintiff States sufficiently demonstrated that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Judge Daniels found that the Plaintiff States and "law-abiding citizens who have come to this country to seek a better life" will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. Finally, Judge Daniels ordered that the injunction be applied nationwide, in order to unify national immigration policy and in consideration of nearly two dozen other jurisdictions that have had suits brought challenging the Rule. 408 F.Supp.3d 334.

On October 30, 2019, the Defendants filed an appeal of the order granting preliminary injunction; the Defendants also sought to stay the preliminary injunction.

On December 2, 2019, Judge Daniels denied the Defendants' motion to stay. Judge Daniels reasoned that "to stay the injunction would be inconsistent with this Court's underlying findings of Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits, and of the irreparable injury that Plaintiffs, noncitizens, and the general public would suffer in the absence of an effective injunction." 2019 WL 6498250.

On January 8, 2020, while the Defendants' appeal was pending, the Second Circuit denied the Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal of the nationwide preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 95815.

On January 13, 2020, the defendants submitted to Justice Ginsburg of the Supreme Court an application for stay of the preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending in the Second Circuit. Justice Ginsburg referred the application to the Supreme Court on January 27, 2020.

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the defendants' application for stay and thus stayed the District Court’s October 11, 2019 orders granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. In granting the defendants' application, Justice Gorsuch, writing the opinion for the court, addressed the many suits, injunctions, and stays regarding the Rule occurring across the country and concluded that the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions." These nationwide injunctions, Justice Gorsuch reasoned, shared a similar flaw in that "they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case." Justice Gorsuch also found that these nationwide injunctions encouraged gamesmanship and forum shopping, that if a single district court issued a nationwide injunction, "the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94-to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal." Thus, in granting the defendants' application for stay and staying the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court found the occasion to address its concerns with the proliferation of nationwide injunctions. 140 S.Ct. 599. After the Supreme Court ruling, the defendants stated that the rule would take effect on February 24, 2020.

Following the Supreme Court's stay of the preliminary injunction and a Ninth Circuit opinion "concluding that the Rule falls well within the Executive Branch’s discretion to interpret and implement the public charge inadmissibility provision in the INA," the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 14, 2020. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were taking "a third bite at the apple" and that because defendants offered "no new substantive arguments, and this Court has already evaluated and rejected Defendants’ contentions under the more stringent standards governing entry of a preliminary injunction," the motion to dismiss should be denied.

On the same day, the plaintiffs, along with the plaintiffs in Make the Road New York, et al. v. Kenneth Cuccinelli, et al., filed a motion to consolidate the two actions for pre-trial purposes. The parties argued that the cases meet the standard for consolidation as they share many common questions of fact and law, as they both challenge the same course of conduct, have considerable factual overlap, and both assert the same constitutional violation and cause of action.

On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff states sent a letter to the defendants urging them "to immediately stop implementation of [the Rule] ... in the wake of the COVID-19 coronavirus." The plaintiff states asserted that, in the context of a nationwide outbreak of COVID-19, "DHS’s policy of deterring immigrants from using the medical benefits to which they are legally entitled directly undermines and frustrates our public health professionals’ efforts, putting our communities and residents at unnecessary risk."

On April 13, plaintiffs filed a motion to the Supreme Court to temporarily lift or modify the Court's stay of the district court's October 11 and December 6, 2019 orders. Plaintiffs' asserted that while state and local authorities had taken "extraordinary efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and well-being of ... residents," the Rule undermined those efforts by "deterring immigrants from accessing healthcare and public benefits that are essential tools for protecting the public at large . . . ." Plaintiffs argues that a stay or modification of the Court's January 27 order to stay "is warranted because the Rule is now causing additional irreparable harms to the public—citizens and noncitizens alike—that were not present when the Court initially considered defendants’ motion for a stay." In their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, defendants asserted that USCIS had issued guidance that "treatment or preventative services will not negatively affect any alien as part of a future Public Charge analysis." Defendants argued that "movants' attempt to discount that guidance is more than incorrect; it is unhelpful by creating confusion about the Rule and the government's COVID-19 response . . . ." The Supreme Court denied the motion to temporarily lift or modify the stay on April 24 but ruled that “[t]his order does not preclude a filing in the District Court as counsel considers appropriate.”

Back in district court on April 28, plainitffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and stay or temporary restraining order, enjoining the implementation of the Rule pending the COVID-19 national emergency. Plaintiffs raised similar arguments to the ones made in the motion before the Supreme Court and requested "that the Court make factual findings recognizing the harmful effects of the Rule during this time of crisis, and issue a new injunction or a . . . stay temporarily halting implementation of the Rule during the national COVID-19 emergency declared by the President." Defendants contended that the district court lacks authority to issues a new injunction, as doing so would "effectively undo the Supreme Court's stay" of the first preliminary injunction. Furthermore, defendants repeated their assertion that "COVID-19-related medical services, “even if . . . provided or paid by” public benefits covered by the Rule including Medicaid, will not be considered for the purpose of the Rule."

Judge Daniels held proceedings on the defendants' motion dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on May 18. The nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the district court remains stayed while it is pending appeal in the Second Circuit. More coming soon.

Aaron Gurley - 03/26/2020
- 06/01/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Food stamps
Medicaid
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Visas - criteria
Visas - procedures
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
State Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
United States Department of Homeland Security
United States of America
Plaintiff Description State and City of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Vermont.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2019 - n/a
Filed 08/21/2019
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-WA-0043 : State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (E.D. Wash.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  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)
1:19−cv−07777−GBD (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0069-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-NY-0069-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/20/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 109] (408 F.Supp.3d 334) (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0069-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/11/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order [ECF# 122] (2019 WL 6498250) (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0069-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/02/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Application for a Stay of the Injunctions Issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
IM-NY-0069-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/13/2020
Opposition of Government Plaintiffs to Defendants' Application for a Stay of the Orders Issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
IM-NY-0069-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/22/2020
Opposition to Application for a Stay of the Injunctions Issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
IM-NY-0069-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/22/2020
Reply in Support of Application for a Stay
IM-NY-0069-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/23/2020
On Application for Stay (140 S.Ct. 599)
IM-NY-0069-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/27/2020
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 141]
IM-NY-0069-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/14/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion by Government Plaintiffs to Temporarily Lift or Modify the Court's Stay of the Orders Issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
IM-NY-0069-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion to Temporarily Lift or Modify the Court's Stay
IM-NY-0069-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/20/2020
Reply of Government Plaintiffs on Their Motion to Temporarily Lift or Modify the Court's Stay of the Orders Issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
IM-NY-0069-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/22/2020
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay or Temporary Restraining Order Pending National Emergency [ECF# 169]
IM-NY-0069-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/28/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay or Temporary Restraining Order Pending National Emergency [ECF# 176]
IM-NY-0069-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/12/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay or Temporary Restraining Order Pending National Emergency [ECF# 183]
IM-NY-0069-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/15/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Daniels, George B. (S.D.N.Y.) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0002 | IM-NY-0069-0003 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Gorsuch, Neil M. (Tenth Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0017
Thomas, Clarence (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0017
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ash, Melanie Calandra Teresa (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Azmy, Baher (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012
Battles, Benjamin D. (Vermont) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Beale, Elana Rose (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Bernhardt, Doris F. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Bowles, Amy (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Cameron, Susan Joan (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Carter, Zachary W. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001
Chu, Ming-Qi (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Colangelo, Matthew (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Donovan, Thomas J. Jr. (Vermont) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014
Ehrlich, Andrew J. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Francisco, Noel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0010 | IM-NY-0069-0013 | IM-NY-0069-0015
Goldstein, Elena Stacy (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Herzog, Steven C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Hurwitz, Jonathan H (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
James, Letitia (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0011 | IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016
Jenerette, Tonya (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Johnson, James E. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014
Kelleher, Kathleen M. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Lu, Hope (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Meyer, Amanda (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
O'Loughlin, Robert Joseph III (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Perry, Joshua (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Rosner, Abigail Everett (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Saini, Ajay (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001
Schwarz, Ghita (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Shafiqullah, Hasan (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Sinnreich, Daniel Shiah (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Spottswood, Eleanor (Vermont) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Thomas, Brittany (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Thompson, Julio A. (Vermont) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Tong, William (Connecticut) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0014
Underwood, Barbara D. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0011 | IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016
Vale, Judith Naomi (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016
Weaver, Cynthia C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0001 | IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Welber, Susan (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0004 | IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-0012 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Wu, Steven C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0014 | IM-NY-0069-0016
Defendant's Lawyers Berman, Keri L. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Berman, Geoffrey S. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0008
Cholera, Kuntal (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008
Davis, Ethan P. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0009 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Haas, Alexander K (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008
Kolsky, Joshua (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Lynch, Jason C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0008
Soskin, Eric J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-0005 | IM-NY-0069-0008 | IM-NY-0069-9000
Other Lawyers Bailey, Regan (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Barbero, Megan (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Bullerjahn, Caroline Herman (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Chan, Denny W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Cherayil, Monisha (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Curet, Tess L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
DeFilipp, Kristyn (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Escoriaza, Phillip A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Frisina, Christopher J (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Grogg, Adam Anderson (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Havemann, William Ernest (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Hirschhorn, Russell L. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Huseny, Sadik Harry (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Kathawala, Rene (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Kean, Natalie Elise (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Kennelly, Kaitland McCann (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Krumplitsch, Susan Marie (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Levine, Jared Alexander (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Levy, Roger A. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Li, Anne Elise Herold (New York) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Lovejoy, Brittany N. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Masters, Owen (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Plutshack, Alexandra B. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Ray, Sarah M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Sprague, Charles Ferer (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Stameshkin, Elizabeth L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Virgien, Kyle A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Waters, Edward T. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000
Yu, Victor Haohan (California) show/hide docs
IM-NY-0069-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -