District Court,
S.D. Texas
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6lE4gWuHMEV77xMQ_WzvDk1v1KVFp75/view?usp=sharing
Filed in TXSD on 05/01/18
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6lE4gWuHMEV77xMQ_WzvDk1v1KVFp75/view?usp=sharing
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Deputy Director and Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and CARLA L. PROVOST, Acting Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Underlying DACA is a dangerously broad conception of Executive power—one that if left unchecked, could allow future Executives to dismantle other duly enacted laws. The Court must not allow that to occur. Plaintiff States respectfully request that the Court issue the following relief regarding DACA (and Expanded DACA, to the extent any permits remain in effect):
A. An order enjoining Defendants from issuing or renewing any DACA permits in the future;
B. A declaratory judgment that DACA violates the Take Care Clause;
C. A declaratory judgment that DACA is procedurally unlawful under the APA;
D. A declaratory judgment that DACA is substantively unlawful under the APA; and
E. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiff States may be entitled.
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Deputy Director and Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and CARLA L. PROVOST, Acting Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Take Care Clause
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the APA’s Procedural Requirements, 5 U.S.C. § 553
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the APA’s Substantive Requirements, 5 U.S.C. § 706
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Underlying DACA is a dangerously broad conception of Executive power—one that if left unchecked, could allow future Executives to dismantle other duly enacted laws. The Court must not allow that to occur. Plaintiff States respectfully request that the Court issue the following relief regarding DACA (and Expanded DACA, to the extent any permits remain in effect):
A. An order enjoining Defendants from issuing or renewing any DACA permits in the future;
B. A declaratory judgment that DACA violates the Take Care Clause;
C. A declaratory judgment that DACA is procedurally unlawful under the APA;
D. A declaratory judgment that DACA is substantively unlawful under the APA; and
E. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiff States may be entitled.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants
and
KARLA PEREZ, ET AL.; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant-Intervenors.
DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff States is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 486). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the individual Defendant-Intervenors is denied. (Doc. No. 504). The Government’s request for a remand without vacatur is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc No. 569). The DACA Memorandum and the DACA program that it created and hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration, as requested.
Nevertheless, these rulings do not resolve the issue of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and others who have relied upon this program for almost a decade. That reliance has not diminished and may, in fact, have increased over time. Therefore, the order of immediate vacatur as it applied to current DACA recipients (but not the order of remand) is temporarily stayed until a further order of this Court, the fifth circuit Court of Appeals, or the United State Supreme Court.
DHS may continue to accept new DACA applications and renewal DACA applications as it has been ordered to by the Batalla Vidal court cited above, but is is hereby enjoined from approving any new DACE applications and granting the attendant status. A separate injunction order will be entered to that effect. To be clear, neither this order not the accompanying injunction requires DHS or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that it would not otherwise take.
Signed this 16th day of July, 2021.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants
and
KARLA PEREZ, ET AL.; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant-Intervenors.
Conclusion
DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff States is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 486). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the individual Defendant-Intervenors is denied. (Doc. No. 504). The Government’s request for a remand without vacatur is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc No. 569). The DACA Memorandum and the DACA program that it created and hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration, as requested.
Nevertheless, these rulings do not resolve the issue of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and others who have relied upon this program for almost a decade. That reliance has not diminished and may, in fact, have increased over time. Therefore, the order of immediate vacatur as it applied to current DACA recipients (but not the order of remand) is temporarily stayed until a further order of this Court, the fifth circuit Court of Appeals, or the United State Supreme Court.
DHS may continue to accept new DACA applications and renewal DACA applications as it has been ordered to by the Batalla Vidal court cited above, but is is hereby enjoined from approving any new DACE applications and granting the attendant status. A separate injunction order will be entered to that effect. To be clear, neither this order not the accompanying injunction requires DHS or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that it would not otherwise take.
Signed this 16th day of July, 2021.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment