La Clínica de la Raza, et al. v. Trump, et al.

Briefs, Memos, and Orders Filed with/Issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (from latest to earliest):

• Amended Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part, and Deferring Ruling in Part on Motion to Dismiss (filed 11/25/20, PDF). “[T]he court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to their standing, ripeness, and zone of interest challenges and with respect to plaintiffs’ third, fifth, and eighth causes of action pertaining to McAleenan’s appointment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fourth, sixth, and eighth causes of action pertaining to Cuccinelli’s appointment in violation of the APA, FVRA, and Declaratory Judgment Act is GRANTED, and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for violation of the Fifth Amendment is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Further, the court DEFERS RULING ON defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action [citation omitted]. Plaintiffs will be permitted to file an amended complaint after resolution of the deferred claims.”

• Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration (filed 11/25/20, PDF). “[P]laintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ third, fifth, and eighth claims pertaining to McAleenan’s appointment as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security is now DENIED. The court’s prior order on the motion to dismiss will be amended accordingly.”

• Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (filed 10/1/20, PDF). “Defendants’ Opposition is remarkable in several respects. It is remarkable for its lack of candor in failing to inform the Court of what was then the only extant judicial decision addressing its arguments. It is remarkable in its disregard for the Court’s rules for seeking reconsideration of a prior ruling. And it is remarkable that Defendants would simply concede in a single sentence that the premise of this Court’s prior ruling in their favor was factually untrue, without any explanation for why they allowed that decision to stand without comment to this Court for 48 days.”

• First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (filed 5/20/20, PDF). “Plaintiffs request that this Court hold unlawful and set aside the Regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the FVRA, and DHS’s organic statute, and that it enter an injunction barring Defendants from implementing the Regulation.”

• Preliminary Injunction (filed 10/11/19, PDF). “Defendants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenen as Acting Secretary of DHS, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli as Acting Director of USCIS, and Donald J. Trump, as President of the United States, are hereby enjoined from applying the Rule, in any manner, to any person residing (now or at any time following the issuance of this order) in San Francisco City or County, Santa Clara County, California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, or Pennsylvania, or to anyone who is part of a household (as defined by the Rule, 8 C.F.R. § 212.21(d)) that includes such a person. The injunction will remain in effect until a resolution of this action on the merits.”

• Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (filed 9/4/19, PDF). “Because the Regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act and will cause irreparable harm, and the equities and public interest weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor, Plaintiffs seek a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement the Regulation and an order postponing the effective date of the Regulation pending judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705.”

• Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (filed 8/16/19, PDF). “Defendants’ ’public charge’ regulation … violates the Administrative Procedure Act … and the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Regulation is squarely at odds with the language of the statute, its century-long interpretation, and Congress’s purpose in enacting the statute. It is arbitrary and capricious and motivated by animus toward non-white immigrants.”

Amicus Briefs Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

• Memorandum of Law of Amici Curiae Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Women’s Law Center and 60 Other Amici in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

• Brief of Amici Curiae Public Health, Health Policy, Medicine, and Nursing Deans, Chairs and Scholars; the American Public Health Association; and the American Academy of Nursing in Support of Plaintiffs

• Brief of Amici Curiae Members of Congress Judy Chu, Chair of the CAPC, Adriano Espaillat, CHC Whip, Yvette D. Clarke, Chair of the CBC Immigration Task Force, Joaquin Castro, Chair of the CHC, Karen Bass, Chair of the CBC, Pramila Jayapal, Chair of the CAPAC Immigration Task Force, Barbara Lee, Co-Chair of the CAPAC Healthcare Task Force, et al., in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

• Brief of Amici Curiae Justice in Aging, American Society On Aging, Caring Across Generations, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, the National Asian Pacific Center On Aging, National Council On Aging, National Hispanic Council On Aging, MAZON, and PHI