Make the Road New York, et al. v. Pompeo, et al.

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

• Memorandum Decision and Order (PDF, filed 7/29/20). “Defendants’ motion to dismiss … is GRANTED to the extent that the President is dismissed as a party to this action. [¶]Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction … is GRANTED. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective the 2018 FAM Revisions, DOS Rule, and Proclamation until further order of this Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court.” (The 7/29/20 order in a parallel case, Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli (PDF), enjoins the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security public charge rule.)

• Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (PDF, filed 2/27/20). “Defendants do not offer a credible justification for restructuring the family-based immigration system in blatant violation of statutorily-required notice-and-comment procedures and separation of powers principles. Instead, they argue that because the Consular Rules regulate immigrant entry and exclusion, they are not subject to judicial review. This radical argument has no basis in case law, statutory authority, or the Constitution, and should be soundly rejected. [¶]Nor do Defendants credibly deny the harm that Plaintiffs and the public are facing once all of the Consular Rules take effect …. The Consular Rules aim to drastically reduce the numbers of immigrants entering on family-based petitions and target Latino, Black, and Asian immigrants in particular.”

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (PDF, filed 2/19/20). “Plaintiffs seek this TRO in order to preserve the status quo pending this Court’s previously scheduled preliminary injunction hearing because the Defendants, who sought extensive delays in briefing by claiming to this Court that there was no ‘impending emergency,’ now seek to implement one of the unlawful immigration restrictions challenged in this action in advance of the upcoming injunction hearing. Defendants’ attempt to evade judicial review before enforcing a radical new rule on the ‘public charge’ provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act should be rejected.”

• Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Support of Motion to Dismiss (PDF, filed 2/13/20).

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (filed 1/21/20, PDF). “The balance of hardships and public interest tilt heavily toward the Plaintiffs. Like the DHS Rule, the challenged Consular Rules will result in economic and public health harms that ‘are not speculative or insufficiently immediate’ but in fact will ‘expose individuals to economic insecurity, health instability, denial of [a] path to citizenship and potential deportation.’ … By contrast, no significant harm will befall Defendants by requiring them to apply the same standards in consular interviews that they have applied for more than 20 years, or by stopping them from applying a health coverage rule that has never existed.”

• Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (filed 12/19/19, PDF). “… Plaintiffs seek to stop three interrelated government actions that apply to intending immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. as lawful permanent residents … : (a) the Department of State’s … January 2018 changes to the public charge provisions of its Foreign Affairs Manual … , which governs consular processing … ; (b) the DOS’s October 11, 2019, Interim Final Rule, which changes the public charge regulations that apply at the point of consular processing … ; and (c) the October 4, 2019, “Presidential Proclamation Suspending the Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the Health Care System” … , as well as subsequent actions to implement the Proclamation by DOS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ….”