On April 18, 2018, a group of five unnamed plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Iranian refugees and their U.S.-based family members who applied for refugee resettlement through the Vienna, Austria-based Lautenberg-Specter program and were denied. The plaintiffs alleged that they had applied for refugee resettlement through the Lautenberg program for members of Iranian religious minorities and had traveled to Vienna for processing. But they received mass denial notices in February 2018 with the sole explanation that the applications were denied “as a matter of discretion.” They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the denial notices violated the Lautenberg Amendment, the Accardi doctrine (agency cannot violate its own regulations), and Fifth Amendment due process. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel from the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and the law firm Latham and Watkins LLP. The Lautenberg Amendment designates certain vulnerable groups, including certain persecuted religious minorities, for whom less evidence is needed to establish refugee status. If an application for refugee status submitted under the provision is denied, the Lautenberg Amendment requires that the denial be made in writing and “state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial.” Under the Lautenberg-Specter program, which extends the protections of the Lautenberg Amendment to Iranian religious minorities, U.S. residents submit an application on behalf of refugee applicants in Iran. Once applicants pass an initial screening, they travel to Vienna where their applications can be processed by the U.S. government. In the years prior to the events at issue in this case, applications submitted through the program had had a near 100 percent admittance rate. The plaintiffs' denials came after many of them had been waiting in Vienna for nearly a year, and now many of them are at risk of deportation back to Iran. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs sought class certification and partial summary judgment on their Lautenberg Amendment, Accardi doctrine, and Fifth Amendment due process claims. In response, DHS argued that all three claims were nonjusticiable because decisions over whether to admit or deny noncitizens outside the U.S. are immune from judicial review. In the alternative, DHS opposed class certification on the grounds that the Iranian plaintiffs and the U.S. plaintiffs were in fundamentally different positions, and that the wide array of familial relationships between the U.S. and Iranian class members meant that the five plaintiffs could not adequately represent the interests of the class. DHS also opposed partial summary judgment on the grounds that the “as a matter of discretion” language in the notices complied with the Lautenberg Amendment’s requirement to explain the reason for the denial to the maximum extent feasible, and that the DHS regulations cited by the plaintiffs did not apply to this case. On July 10, 2018, the district court (Judge Beth Labson Freeman) granted the motion for class certification, and granted partial summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ Lautenberg Amendment and Accardi claims, while declining to rule on their due process claim. 357 F.Supp.3d 972. Judge Freeman explained that DHS’s nonjusticiability arguments were not on point, because the plaintiffs were not challenging the decisions to admit or deny the applications, but were rather alleging that DHS failed to comply with the Lautenberg Amendment and the applicable regulations. She sided with the plaintiffs’ arguments that the “as a matter of discretion” explanation contained in the notices did not comply with the Lautenberg Amendment’s mandate to give the reasons for the denial “to the maximum extent feasible,” because it effectively prevented plaintiffs from requesting agency review. With respect to the Accardi doctrine claim, Judge Freeman also pointed out that DHS’ own regulations require it to advise refugee applicants of any derogatory facts on which an adverse decision is based; she rejected DHS’s arguments that the regulations at issue were inapplicable to the plaintiffs. Citing the fact that she already fully disposed of plaintiff’s claims on statutory grounds, she declined to reach the plaintiff’s due process claim. Judge Freeman thus set aside the February 2018 notices of denial as unlawful, and ordered DHS to re-issue new notices within 14 days containing their determinations to re-open processing or deny the plaintiffs’ refugee applications. DHS filed an appeal to the partial summary judgment motion and the class certification with the Ninth Circuit on September 18, 2018. DHS moved to dismiss the appeal voluntarily on November 16, 2018, and the Ninth Circuit filed the dismissal on November 20. Meanwhile, discovery continued in the District Court. Discovery was fairly contentious with several motions to claw back, sequester, and compel; Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi assessed sanctions of $41,546.52 in attorney's fees against DHS on October 31, 2019. With the COVID-19 pandemic, proceedings on various discovery motions have moved to Zoom, with the most recent motion, a motion to redact portions of a hearing transcript, filed on June 2, 2020. The case is ongoing.

Summary: A group of Iranian refugees and their U.S. sponsors filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied their refugee resettlement applications en masse in February 2018. The plaintiffs applied for refugee resettlement through the Vienna, Austria-based Lautenberg-Specter program for Iranian religious minorities, but received mass denials with the sole explanation that they were denied "as a matter of discretion." The plaintiffs alleged that this violated the Lautenberg Amendment, which mandates that the denial state "to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial," as well as Fifth Amendment due process and DHS's own regulations. On July 2018, the court declared the denial notices unlawful, and ordered DHS to re-issue new notices. As of June 3, 2020, the case is still ongoing.


This case is another response to efforts by the Trump Administration to strip certain law enforcement funding from "sanctuary" cities and states unless their governments agree to participate in federal immigration enforcement. The city and county of San Francisco previously sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) over immigration conditions imposed on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program twice in 2017, details of those cases can be found here and here. On August 22, 2018, the city and county of San Francisco filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of California. San Francisco, represented by the city attorney, sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, the United States Department Justice (DOJ), and dozens of unnamed defendants also allegedly responsible for unconstitutionally conditioning grants of federal funding. San Francisco claimed that this violated the Spending Clause, separation of powers, and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge William Orrick. It was related to a similar case brought by the state of California on Sept. 10, 2018; that case can be found here. San Francisco alleged that the defendants were again imposing unlawful immigration-related conditions on Byrne JAG grants (federal funds that go to a number of criminal justice programs in San Francisco) for fiscal year 2018. The plaintiff stated that several of these conditions were essentially the same as those imposed on FY2017 grants, but that the defendants had additionally imposed two new conditions. Those additional conditions require Byrne JAG recipients: (1) not to publicly disclose sensitive federal law enforcement information in attempts to harbor or shield fugitives from justice or aliens in violation of federal immigration law; and (2) to provide information about the applicant’s laws and policies for purposes of assessing compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (which bars local governments from restricting their employees from sharing citizenship and immigration status information with federal immigration authorities). These conditions are referred to as the “nondisclosure” and “information” conditions, respectively. Failure to cooperate with these conditions would deny the plaintiff up to $1.4 million in Byrne JAG funds for FY2018. The plaintiff claimed that compliance conflicted with existing state and county laws. On December 21, 2018, the City and County of San Francisco moved for summary judgment. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for February 13, 2019. On March 4, 2019, Judge Orrick granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion for partial dismissal or partial summary judgment. Judge Orrick found that the challenged conditions were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers; that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 was unconstitutional; that the Attorney General exceeded the Spending Clause by imposing ambiguous conditions on Byrne JAG grants in FY2018; that the conditions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; that California was entitled to the mandamus relief it was seeking in its related case; and that a nationwide injunction was warranted but stayed. Judge Orrick focused his analysis on the two new conditions imposed for FY2018, incorporating by reference the arguments related to the duplicate conditions from FY2017. The DOJ relied on three statutory provisions to support its conclusion that Congress had delegated authority to the Assistant Attorney General to exercise discretion over formula grants, but Judge Orrick concluded that these provisions did not grant such an independent authority to impose the FY2018 conditions on Byrne JAG grants. On March 26, 2019, Judge Orrick issued his permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from using the FY2018 Byrne JAG funding conditions for any California state entity, San Francisco, any California political subdivision, or any jurisdiction in the United States. The judge then stayed the nationwide aspect of the permanent injunction until further rulings from the Ninth Circuit (which had expressed concerns over the nationwide nature of the relief during the 2017 litigation over Byrne JAG funding conditions). On May 3, 2019, the defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Docket No. 19-15947). The parties subsequently entered mediation conferences. In November 2019, the Ninth Circuit stayed the appeals. The case is ongoing.

Summary: The city and county of San Francisco brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had unlawfully conditioned states' acceptance of certain federal funds on their compliance with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The plaintiff alleged that these conditions violated the Spending Clause and the separation of powers under the Constitution. The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in March, 2019.


On February 14, 2019, a group of asylum seekers from Central America and several legal organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs challenged the Trump Administration’s new policy of forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico while they await their removal proceedings: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The plaintiff individual asylum seekers are currently residing in Mexico after having entered the U.S. to request asylum, and then been returned to Mexico under the MPP. The plaintiffs alleged that these asylum seekers are living in fear in Mexico, and that the plaintiff legal organizations are being thwarted from providing representation to such asylum seekers by the physical removal of them from the U.S. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, and then reassigned to Judge Richard Seeborg on Feb. 19. On Feb. 20, 2019 the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin the MPP until a preliminary injunction could be obtained. The plaintiffs alleged that the MPP violate the section of the INA that purportedly authorizes them, violated the U.S.’s duty of non-return, constituted arbitrary and capricious decision making under the APA, and violated the APA’s notice and comment requirements. The defendants filed their response on March 1. The judge held a hearing on the motion on March 22. On March 28, 2019 the judge issued an order requesting expedited further briefing on the issue of whether jurisdiction of this case lies exclusively in the District of Columbia. On April 8, 2019 Judge Seeborg issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110. The judge found that the INA section vesting DHS with the authority in some circumstances to return certain aliens to a contiguous territory (8 USC § 1225(b)(2)(C)) could not be read to apply to the plaintiff asylum seekers or others similarly situated. Additionally, he found that even if that statute could be applied to the plaintiffs, the MPP still need to be enjoined because they fail to sufficiently protect immigrants from being returned to places where their lives or freedom are at risk (in violation of the U.S.'s non-refoulement obligations). Judge Seeborg therefore enjoined the defendants from implementing the MPP nationwide and ordered that the named individual plaintiffs be permitted to enter the U.S. The defendants appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit and requested a stay of the preliminary injunction pending the appeal. On May 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction. 924 F.3d 503. The panel found that the defendants were likely to prevail on the merits of the plaintiffs' INA and APA claims. It stated that the plaintiff asylum seekers were properly subjected to the contiguous-territory provision of the INA, and that the MPP were exempt from the notice-and-comment requirement because they are general statements of policy. On July 15, 2019, the district court agreed to stay proceedings in the case until the Ninth Circuit appeal was resolved. On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's nationwide injunction of the Migrant Protection Protocols. 951 F.3d 1073. The Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their INA claims because the INA's contiguous territory return provision does not apply to bona fide asylum seekers, and that the MPP do not comply with the U.S.'s treaty-based non-return obligations codified in the INA. The Court also found that the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction, which in practical effect would operate in only the four states along the southern border where the MPP are enforced, was warranted. However, that same day, the government filed an emergency motion requesting either a stay pending disposition of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, or an immediate administrative stay. The Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay that evening and requested expedited briefing by the parties addressing the government's request for a longer stay. On March 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the requested stay. 951 F.3d 1073. The Ninth Circuit denied the stay with respect to the merits of its February 28 holding that the MPP violate federal law. However, it issued a stay of the injunction insofar as it operates outside the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit; this stay was set to begin on March 12. On March 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order halting the Ninth Circuit's injunction of the MPP. 140 S.Ct. 1564. Consequently, the MPP remain in effect nationwide. On April 10, 2020, the government filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. On October 19, 2020, the Supreme Court granted cert. 140 S.Ct. 1564. However, after the President Biden won the 2020 election, the asylum procedure was changed to moot this case. As such, the Acting Solicitor General asked the Court to remove the case from its docket and the Court did so. Because the regulations at issue in this case were changed, this case is now closed.

Summary: On February 14, 2019, a group of asylum seekers from Central America and several legal organizations filed this lawsuit against the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the Administration's new policy of forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico while awaiting their court hearings (the Migrant Protection Protocols), violated the INA and APA. The district court issued a nationwide injunction which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently halted the injunction, leaving the MPP in effect nationwide.On April 10, 2020, the government filed a petitino for certiorari with the Supreme Court. On October 19, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certi.


On June 16, 2019, plaintiffs--three immigration attorneys and two noncitizens who filed FOIA (FOIA) requests for individual immigration case files (known as A-Files)--filed this class-action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (UCIS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alleging that the defendants had a nationwide pattern or practice of failing to make determinations regarding A-File requests within the time period of 30 days as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(b), the FOIA statute. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Immigration Council and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sought declaratory relief that defendants’ failure to make timely determinations on plaintiffs’ and proposed classes’ A-File FOIA requests violates FOIA, and a nationwide injunction requiring defendants to make timely determinations. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The plaintiffs argued that A-Files are crucial to determining a noncitizen's eligibility to apply for an immigration benefit and to change their existing immigration status. The only way that a noncitizen or her attorney can obtain an A-File is to submit an FOIA request. UCIS' FOIA backlog--which more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, despite no increase in requests--had resulted in average processing time for FOIA requests of 55-90 days, exceeding the 30-day deadline. The plaintiffs also asserted that UCIS exacerbated these delays by referring portions of requests to ICE, which also has a considerable backlog, resulting in further delay and incomplete record retrieval. The plaintiffs alleged that these backlogs and delays demonstrate a pattern or practice of unreasonable delay in responding to FOIA requests and that these delays caused "emotional and financial hardship for individuals left in legal limbo" while waiting to obtain these records. On July 2, 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick because the parties did not consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. On August 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, seeking certification for two proposed classes. The first proposed class ("USCIS Class") consisted of "all individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA requests with USCIS which have been pending, or will be pending, with USCIS for more than 30 business days without a determination." The second proposed class ("ICE Referral Class") consisted of "All individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA requests with USCIS that USCIS has referred, or will refer, to ICE and which have been pending, or will be pending, for more than 30 business days from the date of the initial filing with USCIS without a determination." On October 15, 2019, Judge Orrick granted the Motion for Class Certification, concluding that the plaintiffs met their burden for certification of both the "USCIS Class" and the "ICE Referral Class." 2019 WL 5191066. Discovery took place over the summer of 2020 and on September 30, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion of summary judgment. The defendants responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment on October 21. On December 17, 2020, Judge Orrick issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiff's motion and denying the defendants. Finding that the defendants systematically failed to meet statutory FOIA deadlines, Judge Orrick granted the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief. Judge Orrick also enjoined the defendants from failing to meet FOIA deadlines, ordered them to make determinations on all backlogged FOIA requests within 60 days of his order, and ordered them to make quarterly reports on their compliance with the FOIA. The defendant's first status report is due on March 17, 2021, and Judge Orrick scheduled a case management conference for April 6, 2021. The case is ongoing.

Summary: On June 16, 2019, plaintiffs--three immigration attorneys and two noncitizens who filed FOIA (FOIA) requests for individual immigration case files (known as A-Files)--filed this class-action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Immigration Council and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sought declaratory relief that defendants’ failure to make timely determinations on plaintiffs’ and proposed classes’ A-File FOIA requests violates FOIA, and a nationwide injunction requiring defendants to make timely determinations. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief and ordered the defendants to provide quarterly reports on their compliance with the FOIA.


COVID-19 Summary: This is a lawsuit brought by the University of California regents regarding the July 2020 release of ICE regulations which, in effect, meant that students on F-1 visas would risk deportation if their school shifted to online learning. In a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same July directive, the plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded. In order to effectuate the rescission, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance and as a result, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs in this case continued to monitor the alterations ICE made to its website between July and September and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on October 6, 2020.
 Background Generally speaking, F-1 visas (colloquially "student visas") can be granted to international students who attend American universities. However, regulations on the granting of these visas limit the amount of online or distance learning the student can engage in. According to these regulations, an international student can engage in only one such class or three credits of that class per semester. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(6)(i)(G). The COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 made this regulation untenable, as schools and universities had to shift to online learning systems. In response, defendant ICE issued an exemption on March 13, 2020, affirming that international students would be permitted to continue distance learning in the United States under their F-1 visas. The exemption would apply until the end of the emergency. However, on July 6, 2020, ICE issued a new directive stating that it would rescind that exemption. This directive would then mean that international students at schools that would still be fully online would have to either transfer to other schools that were at least partially in-person, go back to their countries voluntarily, or risk deportation. The directive also ordered schools that had gone fully online or had simply decided not to have classes to submit an "operational change plan" within nine days, and ordered schools that would have a hybrid system to certify each F-1 student to make sure that they were not taking entirely online courses. The Lawsuit In response to the new directive, The Regents of the University of California filed this lawsuit on July 10, 2020. They were represented by private and in-house counsel. The University sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Plaintiffs argued that the new directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in two ways. First, the directive was arbitrary and capricious. According to the plaintiffs, the directive failed to consider important aspects of the problem. It also did not address the reliance interests of higher education institutions that put resources into devising public health and safety plans for the upcoming year and it lacked any reasonable basis for the shift in policy. Second, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants failed to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures when they issued the new directive which violated the APA. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an order vacating and setting aside the new directive, an order preventing the defendants from enforcing the the directive, and attorney's fees and costs. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs submitted an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the new policy. They also filed a motion to shorten the time for consideration of the temporary restraining order and argued that the court must take immediate action to avoid doing irreparable harm to the academic community. The case was assigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White after plaintiffs decline to proceed before a magistrate judge. On July 13, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The next day the case was related to State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and re-assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar. On July 14, the parties filed a joint stipulation that stated that because the government agreed to rescind the July directive by removing it from its website and replacing it with the March guidance, California's claims were therefore mooted, and the state agreed to withdraw its motion for a preliminary injunction. Over the next two months, the plaintiffs continued to monitor the changes ICE made to its website in order to fully effectuate the rescission and submitted status reports to the court. On October 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the case is now closed.

Summary: This lawsuit was filed in response to a July 6, 2020 ICE directive that would effectively force out of the country many international students studying remotely during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. The University of California filed suit claiming that the directive was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and an order vacating and setting aside the policy. They also sought declarative relief and attorney's fees. In a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same July directive, the plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded. In order to effectuate the rescission, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance and as a result, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs in this case continued to monitor the alterations ICE made to its website between July and September and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on October 6, 2020.


COVID-19 Summary: This is a lawsuit brought by several international students regarding the July 2020 release of ICE regulations which, in effect, meant that students on F-1 visas would risk deportation if their school shifted to online learning. On July 15, in a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same July directive, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded. In order to effectuate the rescission, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance, but the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that sought a formal declaration that the July 6 directive was improperly issued and an order that the government administer the student visa program in accordance with the March guidance for the duration of the emergency. The court found that the students' claims were mooted by the rescission and granted the government's motion to dismiss on October 1, 2020.
 Background Generally speaking, F-1 visas (colloquially "student visas") can be granted to international students who attend American universities. However, regulations on the granting of these visas limit the amount of online or distance learning the student can engage in. According to these regulations, an international student can engage in only one such class or three credits of that class per semester. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(6)(i)(G). The COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 made this regulation untenable, as schools and universities had to shift to online learning systems. In response, defendant ICE issued an exemption on March 13, 2020, affirming that international students would be permitted to continue distance learning in the United States under their F-1 visas. The exemption would apply until the end of the emergency. However, on July 6, 2020, ICE issued a new directive stating that it would rescind that exemption. This directive would then mean that international students at schools that would still be fully online would have to either transfer to other schools that were at least partially in-person, go back to their countries voluntarily, or risk deportation. The directive also ordered schools that had gone fully online or had simply decided not to have classes to submit an "operational change plan" within nine days, and ordered schools that would have a hybrid system to certify each F-1 student to make sure that they were not taking entirely online courses. The Lawsuit This lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 10, 2020, four days after the directive was issued. Plaintiffs were seven foreign nationals attending University of California schools at the post-graduate level. They were represented by Public Counsel and private attorneys. Defendants were the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The plaintiffs claimed that the new directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act in four ways: 1) the directive was arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to consider reliance interests of F-1 and M-1 visa holders; 2) the directive was arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to offer a reasoned basis to justify the policy; 3) defendants did not engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking when coming up with the new policy; and 4) the directive violated the Fifth Amendment in that it stripped plaintiffs of their visas without due process of law. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the agencies from enforcing the new directive. Plaintiffs also requested that the court vacate and set aside the new directive, in addition to declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. The students filed an application for a temporary restraining order on July 14. Meanwhile, in a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same directive, President and Fellows of Harvard College, the parties conferred and the defendants agreed to rescind their implementation of the directive and to return to the March policy. On July 16, the parties filed a joint stipulation that stated the government agreed to rescind the July directive by removing it from its website and replacing it with the March guidance, which mooted the students original claims. However, in an amendment to the students' application for a temporary restraining order, they noted that despite the removal, the government failed to issue a formal statement of rescission or explanation and failed to issue a statement confirming that the March guidance would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency. They sought an order directing the government to administer the student visa program in accordance with the March guidance for the duration of the emergency. The government filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the students' application for a temporary restraining order. On August 3, the court denied the students' application for a temporary restraining order because the rescission satisfied much of the relief demanded by plaintiffs. The court also denied the government's motion to dismiss, allowing the students to amend their complaint to clarify the relief they continued to seek. The students filed an amended complaint on August 14. The complaint reiterated their demands from the amended application for a temporary restraining order. They sought a declaration that the July 6 directive was improperly issued in violation of the APA and the plaintiffs' due process rights and a directive that the government administer the student visa program in accordance with the March guidance for the duration of the emergency. The government filed a motion to dismiss on August 28. The court found that the students' claims were moot and granted the government's motion to dismiss on October 1, 2020.

Summary: Seven unnamed individuals sued ICE and DHS over their new directive that would effectively force international students to take in-person classes or risk deportation. The suit alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the directive and an order vacating the directive. On July 15, in a different lawsuit filed against the administration over the same July directive, plaintiffs met with counsel for the government and worked to get the regulations rescinded. In order to effectuate the rescission, ICE removed the guidance from its website and replaced it with the previous guidance, but the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint that sought a formal declaration that the July 6 directive was improperly issued and an order that the government administer the student visa program in accordance with the March guidance for the duration of the emergency. The court found that the students' claims were mooted by the rescission and granted the government's motion to dismiss on October 1, 2020.


In March 2018, Secretary Ross and the Department of Commerce announced that a citizenship question would be added to the 2020 Census, because of a request from the Department of Justice for data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. A number of lawsuits followed, culminating in the Supreme Court affirming that the asserted reason for including the citizenship question — to aid in Voting Rights Act enforcement — was pretextual. Subsequently, President Trump, in a continued effort to attempt to exclude immigrants from the 2020 Census count, issued a Presidential Memorandum on July 21, 2020 entitled “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census." This memorandum essentially sought to accomplish the same ends as the 2018 action by the Department of Commerce. Although no citizenship question appeared in the 2020 Census, the President asserted plans to exclude "aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act" for the reapportionment following the Census. On July 28, 2020 the State of California, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the Los Angeles Unified School District filed this lawsuit for declaratory and injunction relief in the Northern District of California. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent its implementation under the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs alleged that President Trump’s July 21 Memorandum violates the constitutional mandates for the census (actual enumeration and apportionment) and the separation of powers under U.S. Const. art. I § 1 and U.S. Const. art. II § 3, as well as violating the Census Act. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants would not be able to accurately exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count given the "'lack of accurate estimates of the resident undocumented population' on a state-by-state basis." The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, but was reassigned twice – first to Edward M. Chen, then to Lucy H. Koh. Per the request of Judge Koh, on August 20, 2020, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order designating a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284, a federal statute that requires convening a three-judge court in cases that challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts. Following this order, Judge Richard R. Clifton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California were assigned to this case along with Judge Koh. On August 21, 2020, Judge Lucy Koh issued an order relating this case with National Urban League v. Ross, and City of San Jose v. Trump. On August 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The complaint added the County of Los Angeles as a plaintiff and added an allegation of an additional violation of the Census Act. On September 10, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment. The case is ongoing as of October 9, 2020.

Summary: In 2020, the State of California, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the Los Angeles Unified School District filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that President Trump's Memorandum violated the constitutional mandates for the census (actual enumeration and apportionment) and separation of powers, as well as violating the Census Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is ongoing as of September 28, 2020.


On Feb. 7, 2018, the Colorado-based nonprofit organization Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) filed this suit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiff was an organization "dedicated to protecting and defending the civil rights of individuals and educating the public concerning civil rights issues." Represented by its own counsel and by the private law firm Ballard Spahr, the plaintiff filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. According to the plaintiff, DHS operated many immigrant detention centers nationwide, including one in Adelanto, CA (the Adelanto Detention Facility [ADF]) in contract with the private-prison corporation GEO Group, and one in Gadsen, AL (the Etowah County Detention Center [ECDC]) in contract with the county sheriff's office. In both facilities, many detainees had alleged substandard conditions including inadequate medical care and mental health care, solitary confinement, and sexual assault. These conditions allegedly led to the death of detained individuals. The plaintiff sought information on conditions of confinement and the individuals detained at these facilities to inform public debate on the issue. The plaintiff alleged that it had submitted several FOIA requests to ICE on Aug. 15 and Sept. 29, 2017, seeking records related to both the detention centers. The complaint further claimed that, to date, the plaintiff had not received a substantive response from any of the defendant agencies and that the plaintiff had constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. The plaintiff sought a disclosure order under FOIA, legal fees, and expedited action. On Feb. 7, 2018, this case was assigned to Judge Richard P. Matsch. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 29. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff included additional facilities run by DHS whose agency records and data had not been made public despite plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. These facilities included the Denver Contract Detention Facility, located in Aurora, Colorado, which was operated by the defendants pursuant to a contract with GEO. Additionally, the Theo Lacy Facility, located in Orange County, California, was also added to the complaint. There, too, the defendants refused to make public agency records in response to the plaintiff's FOIA requests. The Theo Lacy Facility was operated by the defendants through a contract with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. The plaintiff alleged that both facilities have been the subject of numerous complaints, investigations by nongovernmental civil rights organizations, and reports concerning substandard conditions of confinement. The plaintiff also alleged noncompliance with a FOIA request seeking agency records as to the conditions of confinement at all facilities used by ICE for the detention of individuals during their immigration proceedings. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants exceeded the mandated statutory deadline as to all FOIA requests submitted as of the time of the filing of the first amended complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court declare the defendants' withholding of the requested records unlawful and enjoin any further noncompliance. Further, the plaintiff requested that the court order the defendants to make the records subject to the FOIA requests in controversy available and award the plaintiff costs and attorneys’ fees. On May 30, 2019 this suit was reassigned to Judge John L. Kane. The plaintiff moved for leave to file second amended complaint on July 5, 2019. The defendants responded in opposition to the motion on Aug. 9, 2019. On Sept. 16, 2019, the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint notice of potential partial settlement. While tentative, the proposal indicated that the plaintiff may withdraw its motion for sanctions and the discovery order to produce documents. It would also end the litigation surrounding the plaintiff’s opposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On January 16, 2020, Judge Kane ordered that the parties file a joint status report by February 3, 2020, indicating whether it remains necessary for the Court to rule on the plaintiff's pending motions. On February 3, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiff's motions for sanctions and order to produce documents to be withdrawn as moot. Additionally, the court stated that if an agreement could not be reached as to the documents in question the defendants should then move for summary judgment. Before filing for summary judgment, the parties were able to reach a resolution on the plaintiff’s FOIA requests on May 6, 2020. However, the parties could not reach an agreement regarding plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and cost. The plaintiff’s filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on June 8, 2020. As of March 25, 2021, the court had yet to resolve the dispute about plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.

Summary: The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) filed this suit against DHS and ICE under FOIA, seeking information regarding substandard and abusive conditions of confinement against individuals detained at two immigration detention facilities. As of March 25, 2021, a settlement has been reached as to the evidence, but litigation continues for the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.


On August 10, 2007, attorneys and law student interns with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of the Yale Law School, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to compel the release of government records regarding the immigration enforcement policies, practices, and activities of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security ("ICE") in and around New Haven, Connecticut. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought the release of records relating to a June 6, 2007 immigration raid in New Haven, Connecticut, in which 29 individuals were arrested and detained. Plaintiffs alleged that the raid came on the heels of the approval of a municipal identification card program in New Haven. The Government filed an answer, generally denying Plaintiffs' allegations. In April of 2008, the Government moved for summary judgment. During oral argument, the District Court (Judge Mark R. Kravitz) suggested he conduct an in camera review of certain categories of documents in dispute. In September of 2008, the Court issued its Ruling on Documents Submitted In Camera, holding that certain categories of documents containing individually identifiable information were properly withheld from disclosure, but that certain email documents were not exempt from disclosure. Unidad Latina En Acción v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 253 F.R.D. 44 (D. Conn. 2008). The Court instructed the parties to use this ruling as a guide for resolving similar disputes. On December 9, 2008, the Court (Judge Kravitz) entered its ruling on the adequacy of the Government's search. The Court ordered the Government to submit an additional declaration detailing three discrete aspects of its search, but stated that once the Government did so, it would be inclined to grant summary judgment on the adequacy of the search. However, the Plaintiffs then moved for relief from the order, stating that the Government had included false statements in one of the declarations that the Court had relied upon. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion and allowed them to depose certain ICE FOIA officers on the adequacy of the Government's search. The Government also withdrew its summary judgment motion insofar as it pertained to the adequacy of the search. On January 30, 2009, the Court (Judge Kravitz) ruled on its second in camera review based on a certain set of redactions in the Government's documents. The Court ordered that the redactions were appropriate where the individually identifiable information could be matched to individuals, but held it was inappropriate to withhold such information when it was already in the public domain. With this ruling, the Court denied the Government's summary judgment motion as moot, as it had now conducted two in camera reviews and the Government had withdrawn another aspect of its motion. The Government then submitted a third round of documents for the Court's review, with the dispute now centered on the scope of Plaintiffs' FOIA request. On March 27, 2009, the Court entered a text order stating that, for reasons stated during oral argument, the Government had properly withheld certain documents but not others. In late May 2009, following the depositions of the ICE FOIA officers, the parties had worked out an agreement regarding the adequacy of the Government's searches. By November, the parties stipulated that, with the exception of costs and attorneys fees, no further relief was being sought from the Court, and stipulated to dismiss the claims with prejudice. The Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs in part and for the Government in part. In January of 2010, the parties settled the outstanding issues of costs and attorneys' fees, with the Government agreeing to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $64,000.00.

Summary: On August 10, 2007, attorneys and Yale Law student interns filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding an immigration raid in New Haven. After several rounds of in camera reviews by the District Court (Judge Mark R. Kravitz), the parties settled the dispute in November of 2009.


On Jan, 6, 2015, three Central American immigrant mothers and their children filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Plaintiffs, represented by private and public interest counsel including the ACLU, sought certification of a class of all persons who had been or would be detained in ICE facilities; who had been or would be determined to have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries; and who were eligible for release, but had been denied such release pursuant to ICE's blanket "No-Release Policy." In addition to class certification, plaintiffs asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the No-Release Policy violated the APA (as arbitrary and capricious), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (by denying plaintiffs individualized custody determinations, instead basing such determinations on a policy of deterring future immigration). Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction the same day they filed their complaint. On Feb. 20, 2015, the District Court (Judge James E. Boasberg) granted plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court found that, although an across-the-board ICE policy aimed at denying all release to asylum-seeking Central American families did not exist, there was "ample support in the record" to find that DHS required ICE officers "to consider deterrence of mass migration as a factor in custody determinations, and that this policy has played a significant role in the recent increased detention of Central American mothers and children." The Court also found that this policy "contributed to the near universal detention of Central American families since June 2014." The Court held that plaintiffs had standing to challenge this policy, as they satisfied the requirements for class certification under the relation back doctrine. In ruling on the merits of a preliminary injunction, the Court held that plaintiffs had a significant likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim, and stated that DHS's approach to detention did not comport with "traditional purposes" and was "poorly substantiated." The Court also held that plaintiffs were likely to face irreparable harm without injunctive relief; the public interest would be served by an injunction; and the government could not be harmed by an injunction ending an unlawful practice. <i>R.I.L-R v. Johnson</i>, 80 F.Supp.3d 164 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2015). Though defendants at first asked the Court to reconsider the preliminary injunction, on May 13 they notified the Court that the government had announced it would stop invoking deterrence as a factor in family custody-determination cases. However, despite this policy change, the government maintained that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the challenged policy had been lawful. After conferring with the parties, on June 29, 2015, Judge Boasberg dissolved the preliminary injunction (except for the provisional class certification) and administratively closed the case. Judge Boasberg specified that if defendants wish to reinstate a policy of considering deterrence, they must notify the Court. If this happens, plaintiffs may move to administratively reopen the case and request a reinstatement of the preliminary injunction. As of February 20, 2021, the case remained administratively closed and there was no further activity in the case. Still, the district court’s order requiring the government to inform plaintiffs if it resumes its practice of detaining families on deterrence grounds remains in effect.

Summary: On Jan. 6, 2015, Central American immigrant mothers and children filed a class action lawsuit against DHS and ICE, challenging their "No-Release Policy" in making custody determinations for asylum-seeking families. On Feb. 20, 2015, the Court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants ended the policy in May 2015. This case is now administratively closed. If the defendants reinstate a policy of considering deterrence in determining whether to detain a family, they must notify the court and the plaintiffs may move to administratively reopen the case. Since June 2015, there has been no additional activity in the case.


On April 18, 2017, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Council (“ADC”) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sued the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). The plaintiff alleged that CBP unlawfully withheld records that the plaintiffs had requested under the Freedom of Information Act. (The FOIA request had sought records of CBP action revoking, suspending, or terminating participation in the Global Entry System for certain Arab and Muslim U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents.) CBP failed to disclose the requested records within the time period specified by the statute, and did not offer any meaningful estimate of when the records would become available. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the agency to perform an expedited search for responsive records, and to produce all responsive records which were not subject to a FOIA exemption. The plaintiff also sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The court ordered the parties to submit joint status reports on the agency’s document production. In the joint status report submitted on March 1, 2019, the parties informed the court that they had resolved their records production dispute. On July 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, informing the court that the parties had reached an agreement on attorneys’ fees and costs. The court dismissed the case the same day.

Summary: On April 18, 2017, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Council filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking for the court to compel United States Customs and Border Patrol to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. The plaintiffs sought records of CBP action revoking, suspending, or terminating participation int he Global Entry System for certain Arab and Muslim U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. The court ordered joint status updates. In March 2019, the parties informed the court that they had resolved the records production dispute. In July 2019, they informed the court that they had reached an agreement regarding attorneys’ fees and costs, and requesting that the case be dismissed. The court dismissed the case on July 26, 2019.


On Oct. 24, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. According to the complaint, plaintiff is a nonprofit organization with a "mission is to protect our democracy from descending into a more autocratic form of government by preventing those in power from depriving Americans of a free, fair, and fully-informed opportunity to exercise ultimate sovereignty." As part of its activities, plaintiff aims to inform the public about executive branch activity, including by filing FOIA requests and releasing the results on its website. The law firm Covington & Burling represented plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff sought disclosure of agency records by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that would shed light on the extent to which defendants cooperated with armed private militia groups along the U.S.-Mexico border. In his Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order 13767, President Trump directed DHS to hire 5,000 additional CBP agents. According to plaintiff, public reports suggest that CBP agents may be informally working with unaffiliated militia groups to police the border. The complaint alleged that on Aug. 3, 2017, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to DHS seeking copies of records related to the following: 1. DHS's interactions and involvement with unaffiliated border enforcement groups, including all communications between CBP field officers and any other component of DHS relating to such groups, and all communications between any DHS employee and any representative of such group; 2. CBP's interactions and involvement with such groups at the Sectors of Big Bend, Del Rio, Laredo, and Rio Grande Valley, TX; Tuscon and Yuma, AZ; and El Centro and San Diego, CA. The complaint further alleged that, to date, plaintiff had not received a substantive response from DHS or CBP. Plaintiff sought an expedited disclosure order under FOIA and sought legal fees. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Also on Oct. 24, plaintiff filed a notice that this case was related to another with the same name, Protect Democracy Project v. DHS, No. 1:17-cv-02118 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2017). Status reports filed from March through October 2018 indicated the parties continued to confer on the scope of the search and that the defendants produced responsive records periodically. A status conference was held on October 29, 2018, and the court ordered that CBP provide a description of the searches that the agency has conducted as well as hit counts for the searches by November 5 and 12, respectively. The court ordered DHS to meet and confer with the plaintiffs to discuss the plaintiff’s request for an explanation of the agency’s redactions. In the status report dated Nov. 16, 2018, the plaintiffs claimed that DHS had failed to respond to the requests to meet and confer for eleven days after the imposed deadline, and asked the court to enter an order requiring DHS to provide them with a summary of the basis for its redactions and withholdings and an explanation for its failure to respond to the meet and confer request. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer. The plaintiffs further submitted in a later report dated March 15, 2019, that DHS had failed to comply with the agreed ordered production schedule. The court ordered DHS to submit a declaration. DHS submitted a declaration stating that they were unable to process any records temporarily due to the government shutdown at the time and the high workload that resulted afterward. In the latest joint status report filed by the parties on June 12, 2020 the defendants reported that they continued to experience work disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, but that they expected to complete their processing and release of remaining, non-exempt records by the end of July. This case is ongoing.

Summary: On Oct. 24, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project sued DHS and CBP in D.D.C. under FOIA. Plaintiff sought disclosure of agency records on the extent to which defendants cooperate with armed private militia groups along the U.S.-Mexico border. This case is ongoing.


On August 23, 2018, Muslim Advocates filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Justice [DOJ] and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]. The complaint alleged that the defendants improperly withheld information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Muslim Advocates had requested information from both defendants regarding Operation Janus, where the DOJ, in conjunction with other agencies, reviewed the files of naturalized citizens and began intensive denaturalization efforts. In-house counsel along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP represented the plaintiff. The plaintiff had requested information from both defendants on January 11, 2018. The Civil Division of the DOJ denied the request in full on January 19, 2018, claiming that the release of the documents would be "reasonably expected" to interfere with law enforcement. The DOJ did not explain their reasoning for this determination. The plaintiff then requested a Vaughn index, in which the government provides an itemized index of withheld documents and justification for doing so. The DOJ did not respond to this request. On February 9, 2018, ICE informed the plaintiff that the scope of the request was too broad, and thus did not process the FOIA request. Even after the plaintiff amended its request for information on several occasions, ICE did not release any of the requested documents. The case was assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. Status reports indicate that the parties reached an agreement on all FOIA issues on January 13, 2020; that agreement has not yet been publicized. Negotiations over ICE's payment of plaintiff's attorneys fees are ongoing as of June 9, 2020; the next status report is due June 15, 2020.

Summary: On August 23, 2018, Muslim Advocates filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Justice [DOJ] and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]. The complaint alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). Muslim Advocates had requested information from both defendants regarding Operation Janus, where the DOJ reviewed the files of naturalized citizens and began intensive denaturalization efforts. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case moved to settlement negotiations; an agreement on all FOIA issues was reached on January 13, 2020, but negotiations over attorneys fees are ongoing as of June 2020.


On November 20, 2018, a group of asylum seekers challenged the federal government’s latest asylum policy, which prohibited people who enter the United States along the southern border somewhere other than a designated port of entry from obtaining asylum. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged an interim final rule promulgated on November 9, 2018, declaring all those subject to a presidential proclamation concerning the southern border ineligible for asylum, as well as the “Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States” signed the same day blocking the entry of all people entering the United States without inspection at the southern border. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Represented by the National Immigrant Justice Center, Human Rights First, and private counsel, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Randolph D. Moss. The plaintiffs were six non-citizens who entered the United States seeking asylum. Two were a father and daughter who fled Honduras to escape a gang threatening to kill them, fearing the local police would not be willing to protect them. Another fled from Mexico, seeking safety from her gang-affiliated partner who repeatedly beat her and threatened to kill her. A fourth plaintiff was an unaccompanied minor from Honduras who sought to escape a credible fear of murder from his father—a police officer who abused him—and from a gang that the plaintiff refused to join on moral grounds. Another two plaintiffs were a mother and her son from Honduras seeking asylum to escape the violence and threat of death posed by her husband. None had been granted asylum. The plaintiffs argued that federal law allowed non-citizens to seek asylum regardless of their immigration status or how they entered the United States. Further, federal law established procedural safeguards that aimed to give asylum seekers a fair review process during removal proceedings. The plaintiffs also argued that under treaty obligations, the United States could not deny asylum on the basis of where the non-citizen entered the country. But the government’s new rule, part of its broader “zero-tolerance” policy on immigration, “shutters access to the asylum system for thousands of men, women, and children that the Administration concedes are likely to have meritorious asylum claims.” Faced with even longer wait times at the border, the complaint argued, asylum seekers already in dangerous situations and with scarce financial resources were thus left seriously vulnerable to violence from criminal organizations near the border. At the same time the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, to be followed by a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation and enforcement of the rule and the proclamation. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, as did a group of seven United States Senators. On December 17, 2018, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and consolidated the case with S.M.S.R. v. Trump, designating this case as the lead case. On December 21, the court decided to hold the motion in abeyance. On December 18, 2018, the S.M.S.R. v. Trump plaintiffs filed an amended complaint listing seven additional asylum seekers as plaintiffs. At the same time, the plaintiffs in this case also filed an amended complaint seeking certification of a class consisting of all persons who had crossed the southern border since November 10, 2018, and had either gone into hiding to avoid detection, presented outside a port of entry and been detained, or presented and been released pending further immigration proceedings. On December 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to stay all briefing deadlines in light of the lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice caused by the federal government shutdown. The court, however, denied this motion. On January 4, 2019, the plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for summary judgment and class certification. The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment on February 25, 2019. Oral argument on these pending motions was scheduled for May 29, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ summary judgment and class certification motions, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied as moot the plaintiffs’ earlier motion for a temporary restraining order. The court held that the rule challenged by the plaintiffs was “unlawful” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also found both the plaintiffs’ argument for an injunction and the defendants’ argument against the injunction unpersuasive; as a practical matter, it would be impossible to vacate the challenged rule with respect to the organizational plaintiffs without vacating the entire rule. As such, the court agreed to vacate the rule but declined the plaintiffs’ request to enforce the requested injunction. As to the class certification, the court found that, here, the class certification requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. 404 F.Supp.3d 109. On September 30, 2019, the defendants appealed the case (D.C. Circuit docket number 19-5272); as of August 2020, the case is ongoing.

Summary: On November 20, 2018, a group of asylum seekers challenged a federal government policy of denying asylum to people who entered the United States, without inspection, along the southern border. They claimed violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. This case was later consolidated with S.M.S.R. v. Trump. The court granted class certification and partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on August 2, 2019. The defendants appealed the ruling. As of August 2020, the case is ongoing.


COVID-19 Summary: This is a federal lawsuit in D.C. District Court in which noncitizen families detained by ICE in "Family Residential Centers" (FRCs) are seeking release to avoid COVID-19 infection. On March 30, District Judge James Boasberg ordered ICE to provide appropriate infection protocols for the adults (a similar order from another case, Flores, applies to the children), to comply with CDC guidelines for congregate institutions, and to file a report regarding FRC capacity, implementation of the CDC guidelines, the number of detainees released, and videotape of the living conditions at the FRCs. The court denied the plaintiffs' later motion for a preliminary injunction demanding wholesale release of detainees on July 22. On December 10, the court dismissed the claim under the APA and the writs of mandamus. A hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2021.
 Full Summary: On March 21, 2020, 37 families detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in three family residential centers (“FRC”) sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs were detained in three FRC's in Pennsylvania and Texas and represented by three public interest groups: ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the Rapid Defense Network. The plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of their detention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic violated their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.), Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02) and, with regards to detained minors, the Flores Agreement. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and writs of mandamus. With regards to the injunctive relief, the plaintiffs requested the court order the immediate release of all detainees in the FRC’s, the implementation of protocols designed to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, and the suspension of new detainments until the COVID-19 protocols have been implemented. The case was assigned to Judge James Boasberg. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their Fifth Amendment rights by subjecting civil detainees to a substantial risk of serious harm from the COVID-19 virus. The COVID-19 coronavirus spreads through respiratory droplets and can be transmitted when an infected person coughs or sneezes. The Center for Disease Control stated that it may be possible for someone to contract the virus if they touched a surface with the virus on it, then touched their own face. The plaintiffs alleged that the most effective means of prevention are improved hygiene and social distancing of at least six feet. FRC’s are congregate environments, where detainees eat, sleep, and play together in confined spaces that do not allow for the recommended “social distancing.” The FRC’s are cleaned by detainees provided with allegedly inadequate supplies, which the plaintiffs believe put detainees at increased risk of infection because FRC surfaces are used to prepare meals, take showers, and perform all other functions of daily life. The plaintiffs alleged that the congregate environment and inadequate hygiene procedures, combined with the daily turnover of FRC staff, make an outbreak imminent. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to implement policies and procedures to protect the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. They argued that the lack of policies constituted a final agency action, making it reviewable by a court. Finally, the plaintiffs stated that the Flores Settlement Agreement required the defendants to safeguard and protect immigrant children in their custody by making facilities safe and sanitary, and releasing minors without unnecessary delay in order to ensure their safety. The plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of detention violated the rights of minors under the Flores Settlement Agreement. For more information on the Flores Settlement, see Flores v. Reno in the Clearinghouse. Immediately, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested an emergency hearing. On March 30, Judge Boasberg granted in part and denied in part without prejudice the plaintiff's motion. Judge Boasberg ordered that the Government provide for the adults at the three Family Residential Centers the same protocols and procedures as ordered for the children there in Flores. The Government also must provide to FRC detainees CDC-compliant protocols and protections for congregate settings in civil-detention facilities. Additionally, Judge Boasberg ordered the Government to provide the Court with a report regarding the capacity of the three FRCs, the implementation of the CDC guidelines, and the number of detainees released, as well as a videotape of the living conditions at the FRCs. Public health experts and the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a brief in support of the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order. The brief detailed that the highly contagious nature of the disease made an outbreak "highly probable" even if the three FRCs adopted CDC-recommended preventative measures. The authors recommended releasing families with children to enable social distancing and mitigate the risk. On April 13, the Court held a telephonic hearing with the parties. Judge Boasberg declined to grant immediate release of the immigrant families, finding that the government is "continuing to make substantial progress" to ensure that detainees are not infected. Judge Boasberg pointed to the installation of hand washing stations installed at some FRCs, and his belief that the FRCs are in compliance and CDC guidance for congregate settings. For the next hearing, Judge Boasberg ordered the defendant to file a notice detailing the statistics on detainees and releases in the three FRCs, ICE's compliance with CDC guidelines, and its response plan, including testing capabilities and PPE supplies. Judge Boasberg again declined to grant immediate release of detainees in a telephonic hearing held on April 27. He extended some conditions from the Flores Agreement to adults, but stopped short of requiring the government to explain why an adult has been in detention for more than 20 days. Judge Boasberg stated his continued belief that conditions are improving at the FRCs, and noted that the three centers are at least 16% under capacity. On May 20, Judge Boasberg held a telephonic conference in which the plaintiffs argued that any improvements by a reduced population were undermined by the government's closure of parts of the facilities, thereby pushing the remaining detainees closer together. The plaintiffs argued that extended detention in these conditions amounted to a Fifth Amendment due process violation. Judge Boasberg, though, rebuffed the proposition, stating that he did not have the authority to order the immediate release of all detainees based on the conditions alleged. On May 26, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint and a motion in opposition to the temporary restraining order. On June 25, the court ordered the defendants to notify the court and the plaintiffs of any positive tests of staff or detainees. Numerous new positive cases were noted between June and November. On July 2, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the measures put in place by defendants as a result of the March 30 temporary restraining order were insufficient. The motion was denied on July 22 because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that "nothing short of wholesale release - the only remedy Petitioners seek at this time - [could] redress their injuries." On July 17, defendants had filed a notice of an order in Flores v. Barr, 2020 WL 3488040, which was a decision issued pursuant to the Flores Settlement which had ordered the release of detainees, but only minors detained at an FRC, not adults, which meant that the plaintiffs' demands only applied to adult detainees. The parties had numerous status conferences throughout the summer and fall. On September 16, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add more plaintiffs. On December 10, the court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all but the due process and FSA claims. 2020 WL 7264049. The judge dismissed the claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the plaintiffs did not identify any final agency action and that the court did not have jurisdiction since the actions were under the Attorney General's authority. He further denied writs of mandamus on the grounds that the plaintiffs had received adequate remedy and the claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as the Act only provided relief rather than a cause of action. As the litigation proceeded, the parties continued to file status reports and notices regarding positive cases in the detention center. Certain plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal and on January 24, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join additional defendants, which the defendants opposed on February 12, 2021. The Clearinghouse does not have access to these documents at this time. The case is ongoing.

Summary: 37 families detained at three ICE-managed family residential centers sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security alleging violations of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and violations of the Flores Settlement Agreement. The plaintiffs alleged that the congregate environment and unsanitary conditions of the detention centers make them a tinderbox for a COVID-19 outbreak. They sought immediate release until proper protocols could be implemented. The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order which was granted in part and denied in part on March 30. The court ordered ICE to provide appropriate infection protocols for the adults (a similar order from another case, <i>Flores</i>, applies to the children), to comply with CDC guidelines for congregate institutions, and to file a report regarding FRC capacity, implementation of the CDC guidelines, the number of detainees released, and videotape of the living conditions at the FRCs. On May 26, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion in opposition to the temporary restraining order. The court denied the plaintiffs' later motion for a preliminary injunction demanding wholesale release of detainees on July 22. On December 10, the court dismissed the claim under the APA and the writs of mandamus. A hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2021. The case is ongoing.


COVID-19 Summary: A group of transgender people in civil immigration detention requested an injunction ordering supervised release of all transgender people in immigration detention in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for TRO on June 2, 2020. On January 6, 2021, the case was dismissed upon parties' stipulation of dismissal. <hr> On April 23, 2020, a group of transgender people in civil immigration detention filed this class action complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by the Transgender Law Center and the Rapid Defense Network, along with private counsel, the plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States. They requested an injunction ordering supervised release of all transgender people in immigration detention. The plaintiffs argued that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not provide sufficient measures to curb the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities and that transgender individuals are particularly vulnerable to infection because they are more likely to have underlying health conditions like HIV, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that by subjecting them to a higher risk of infection, the defendants failed to ensure their safety and health and held them in conditions amounting to punishment in violation of their substantive due process rights. They also claimed that by continuing to refuse to establish and implement policies and procedures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, the defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused their discretion in violation of the APA. The case was assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper. On May 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in addition to a permanent injunction. On May 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, for a class consisting of all transgender people in civil immigration detention who are held, or who will be held, in any ICE detention center or facility across the country during the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 11, they also sought to join two new plaintiffs. On June 2, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for TRO, finding that ICE had taken steps to contain the virus in detention facilities. 2020 WL 2935111. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, limiting the case to the named plaintiffs. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on July 31. They claimed that most of the named plaintiffs were released from detention or removed, with only three remaining, rendering their claims moot. For the remaining plaintiffs, they argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the APA and for a writ of mandamus. On August 14, 2020, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint with additional requests for relief. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought an order requiring the defendants to issue an ICE bond for all plaintiffs and class members pending the completion of these proceedings. They further sought an order requiring ICE to incorporate the model procedures outlined in the 2015 Transgender Care Memorandum, claiming that ICE had systematically failed to protect transgender people. They also noted that on August 14, 2020, ICE had publicly reported 4,531 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 5 deaths, which is a significant increase from 285 reported cases in April. The defendants sought to dismiss the amended complaint on September 18, 2020 and the plaintiffs filed their response on October 16, 2020. On January 5, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal, and on January 6, 2021, the case was dismissed.

Summary: On April 23, 2020, a group of transgender people in civil immigration detention filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs requested an injunction ordering supervised release of all transgender people in immigration detention in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 2, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for TRO and motion for class certification. After filing an amended complaint in August, 2020, the case was dismissed on January 6, 2021.


Note: This lawsuit is a challenge to the Department of Defense’s failure to certify the honorable military service of MAVNI soldiers seeking expedited naturalization under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Samma v. United States Department of Defense is a similar challenge brought by non-MAVNI soldiers who qualify for expedited naturalization under the same statute. Nio v. United States Department of Homeland Security challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s consideration and adjudication of applications following certification of honorable military service.
 The Immigration and Nationality Act provides an expedited path to citizenship for non-citizens serving in the United States military, but in 2016, the Obama Department of Defense implemented a new internal policy adding substantive and procedural requirements. Objecting to new policy, three non-citizen service members, represented by private counsel, filed this class-action lawsuit against the Department of Defense. The complaint, filed on September 1, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, alleged that the Department’s policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Department’s new requirements were unlawful; an injunction barring the Department from implementing the 2016 policy; and mandamus and APA relief compelling the Department to promptly process naturalization paperwork without adding extra-statutory requirements. They also sought to bar the Department from retaliation against soldiers participating in the lawsuit, and from discharging a soldier in order to avoid certifying her honorable service. Finally, they sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs had all joined the military through the MAVNI program (“Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest”), through which the Department of Defense enlisted non-citizen soldiers who had special medical or linguistic skills needed by the military. Under this program, which was authorized by 8 U.S.C. §1440, MAVNI soldiers qualified for an expedited pathway to U.S. citizenship; the Department even contractually required MAVNI soldiers to apply for citizenship. This opportunity was a significant recruiting incentive. As part of the expedited naturalization process, the Department of Defense was required to certify to the Department of Homeland Security that an applicant’s military service had been honorable; DHS created Form N-426 for this certification. The statute did not specify a particular duration of service; it simply required a soldier’s service to be honorable. DHS regulations confirmed that a soldier could be eligible for expedited naturalization after one day of military service. Contrary to the express language of the statute, the 2016 policy indicated that the Department would not certify a soldier’s honorable service unless she had served in active-duty status. The policy also restricted the pool of military officials authorized to sign the certification. The plaintiffs’ certification requests had been denied or delayed because of the new policy. They alleged that the delay in naturalization deprived them of the protections that the statute was intended to provide, including access to United States consular services while deployed overseas, work and school authorization and benefits, and ability to sponsor family members. On October 25, 2017, the court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring that the Department “use its best efforts” to complete each N-426 form within 2 days of receiving it. 285 F. Supp. 3d 21. The order provisionally certified a class for purposes of the preliminary injunction, comprising MAVNI recruits who had enlisted prior to October 13, 2017. Two days later, the Department sought an administrative stay of one week, to allow time for the Solicitor General to decide whether to appeal the order; the court denied that motion the same day. The court’s order clarified that any application which had previously been returned to its applicant would have to be re-submitted in order to be certified. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 3, 2017. On November 15, they moved to enforce the preliminary injunction, alleging that the Department was not complying with the court’s order: it was not promptly completing N-426 forms, it had “imposed new administrative pre-conditions for issuance of N-426 forms,” and it had not informed unit commanders or class members of the requirements of the preliminary injunction. The same week, the Department moved for dismissal or for summary judgment. Acknowledging that the court had already granted class certification in Nio, the Department did not oppose the plaintiffs’ class certification motion in this case. It did, however, seek to limit the class to include only those who qualified as of the date of class certification. When the court granted certification on December 1, 2017, it specified no cut-off date for class membership; it simply specified MAVNI soldiers who had not received a duly authenticated N-426. On December 15, 2017, the court ordered the Department to submit regular status reports. (This order was eventually vacated in June 2020.) On January 11, 2018, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim, but denied the Department’s motion to dismiss (or grant summary judgment on) the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims. 285 F. Supp. 3d 257. On May 23, the court denied the Department’s motion to reconsider. 315 F. Supp. 3d 266. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Harvey for mediation in December 2019; as of August 2020, negotiations continue.

Summary: Three non-citizen soldiers in the U.S. military brought this class-action lawsuit against the Department of Defense in September 2017. The Department was refusing to certify their honorable military service for purposes of expedited naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court issued a preliminary injunction in October 2017, requiring the Department to certify honorable service within 2 days of a soldier’s request, without imposing additional procedural or substantive requirements. As of August 2020, the plaintiffs and the Department of Defense are in mediation.


Note: This lawsuit challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of delaying naturalization for MAVNI soldiers who had already received certification of their honorable military service. Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense is a challenge to the Department of Defense’s failure to certify the honorable military service of MAVNI soldiers seeking expedited naturalization; Samma v. United States Department of Defense is a similar challenge by non-MAVNI soldiers.
The Immigration and Nationality Act provides an expedited path to citizenship for foreign nationals serving in the United States military. However, in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security began (at the request of the Department of Defense) to delay soldiers’ citizenship applications until the Department of Defense could complete an additional background check. Objecting to this new policy, 10 non-citizen service members, represented by private counsel, filed this class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Defense. The complaint, filed May 24, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, alleged that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs had all joined the military through the MAVNI program (“Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest”), through which the Department of Defense enlisted non-citizen soldiers who had special medical or linguistic skills needed by the military. Under this program, which was authorized by 8 U.S.C. §1440, MAVNI soldiers qualified for an expedited pathway to U.S. citizenship; the military even contractually required MAVNI soldiers to apply for citizenship. This opportunity was a significant recruiting incentive. When a soldier applied for expedited naturalization, the Department of Defense was required by law to certify the soldier’s honorable military service (using DHS Form N-426), after which the Department of Homeland Security would process the soldier’s naturalization application. The plaintiffs in this case had already received certification of their honorable military service; however, after issuing certification, the Department of Defense asked the Department of Homeland Security to delay the soldiers’ applications while it conducted further background checks and investigations. When the Department of Homeland Security complied with this request, the resulting delay deprived the plaintiffs of the protections of citizenship that the statute was intended to provide for service members. The plaintiffs claimed that Congress had enacted the statute to make the naturalization process easier for soldiers, not harder, and that this enhanced background investigation process was directly contrary to congressional intent. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that it was not lawful for the agencies to put applications on hold to conduct background checks. They sought an injunction compelling the Department of Homeland Security to promptly process applications (and to expedite applications which had already been delayed); barring the Department of Defense from further interference with the processing of applications; and prohibiting either agency from retaliating against the plaintiffs or members of the proposed class. They sought similar mandamus and Administrative Procedure Act relief. Finally, they sought attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 4, 2017. On August 24, the court ordered the agencies to begin submitting weekly status reports. On September 6, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Although they had demonstrated that the processing delay was causing them irreparable harm, they had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, the plaintiffs’ irreparable harm did not outweigh the seriousness of the national security concerns presented by the agencies. 270 F. Supp. 3d 49. On October 13, 2017, the Department of Defense  further announced that it would “recall and de-certify” its honorable service certifications for service members who had not yet completed a background check. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, objecting to this additional obstacle in the naturalization process. The court granted class certification on October 27, 2017. 323 F.R.D. 28. The class consisted of MAVNI soldiers who had enlisted prior to October 13, 2017; had received an N-426 certifying their honorable service; and whose naturalization had been delayed or withheld because of the agencies’ new policies. The same day, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, “for the reasons set forth in the Court’s opinion granting a preliminary injunction in Kirwa” (issued two days earlier). The injunction prevented the Department of Defense from recalling or de-certifying a soldier’s Form N-426 while awaiting the results of a background investigation. On January 23, 2018, the court denied the agencies’ motion to dismiss. In an April 12, 2018 order, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for more extensive preliminary injunctive relief. The agencies were ordered to submit reports to the court every four weeks, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather for further proceedings. On June 20, 2018, the court denied another motion by the agencies for dismissal or for summary judgment. On July 16, 2018, the magistrate judge ordered the agencies to provide a redacted version of a confidential agency document that the plaintiffs sought in discovery. 314 F. Supp. 3d 238. A year later, on May 22, 2019, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Because the Department of Homeland Security’s “purported reasons” for delaying applications “[did] not comport with the evidence before the Court,” the court concluded that the policy of delay was “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” The court therefore vacated the MSSD portion of the delay policy (the MSSD was one of the key components of the background investigation). 385 F. Supp. 3d 44. In the same order, the court denied another motion by the defendants for summary judgment. The court continued to require the agencies to provide regular reports regarding the number of naturalization applications processed and the time it took to process them. On December 13, 2019, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Harvey for mediation. On August 20, 2020, the court converted the preliminary injunction of October 27, 2017 into a permanent injunction. This ruling was based on the court’s May 22 decision vacating the MSSD requirement. The plaintiffs’ remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders.

Summary: Non-citizen soldiers in the U.S. military brought this lawsuit in May 2017, challenging policies of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense that unlawfully delayed their naturalization applications. The court certified a class and granted a preliminary injunction against the agencies on October 27, 2017. On May 22, 2019, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the agencies’ policy of delaying naturalization applications was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued a permanent injunction on August 20, 2020, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.