Wolf, et al. v. Batalla Vidal, et al.

Amended Lawsuit in New York Challenges Termination of DACA Program

Wolf, et al. v. Batalla Vidal, et al. (formerly Batalla Vidal, et al. v. Baran, et al.)

♦ Information for class members: nilc.org/dacaclassaction or www.nilc.org/daca-class-action-lawsuit

Briefs, Memos, Orders, and Letters Filed with/Issued by the U.S. Supreme Court (from latest to earliest):

  • Supreme Court Opinion and Decision (6/18/20, PDF). “In failing to consider the option to retain deferred action, Duke ’failed to supply the requisite ”reasoned analysis.”’ … [¶] That omission alone renders Duke’s decision arbitrary and capricious, but it was not the only defect. Duke also failed to address whether there was ‘legitimate reliance’ on the DACA Memorandum. … Certain features of the DACA policy may affect the strength of any reliance interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first instance. DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious.”
  • Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief after Oral Argument, and Supplemental Brief (filed 4/2/20, PDF). “[N]on-State respondents Martín Batalla Vidal, et al., move for leave to file a supplemental brief presenting new information that was not available at the time of oral argument. First, this case involves whether the decision to terminate DACA must be vacated because, among other reasons, the Department of Homeland Security did not adequately assess the relevant reliance interests when it terminated the program. … Second, the question of whether DACA recipients would be deported if the program were terminated was raised at oral argument. … The federal government recently clarified its plans regarding the deportation of DACA recipients with final orders of removal.”
  • Letter to U.S. Supreme Court Re: Wolf, et al., v. Batalla Vidal, et al., No. 18-589, and the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis (3/27/20, PDF). “We write to advise the Court of the bearing on this matter of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current national state of emergency. Batalla Vidal-Respondents argue that the decision to terminate DACA must be vacated because, among other reasons, the agency did not adequately assess the relevant reliance interests when it terminated the program. The public health crisis now confronting our nation illuminates the depth of those interests as borne by employers, civil society, state and local governments, and communities across the country, and especially by healthcare providers. Furthermore, it throws into sharp relief DACA recipients’ important contributions to the country and the significant adverse consequences of eliminating their ability to live and work without fear of imminent deportation. These are the very consequences the agency failed to consider.”
  • On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Brief in Opposition for Respondents Martín Jonathan Batalla Vidal, et al. (filed 12/17/18, PDF). “The government seeks an extraordinary and unwarranted intervention from this Court to save it from routine judicial process and decisions it does not like. … The preliminary injunction entered by the district court — a stay of which the government never sought below — does no more than preserve the status quo and creates no circumstances that justify the extraordinary procedural departure of certiorari before judgment. In contrast, for this Court to disrupt the status quo without ordinary appellate review, as the government urges, would upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people and their families, schools, workplaces, and communities.”

Briefs, Memos, and Orders Filed with/Issued by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (from latest to earliest):

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

  • Order (filed 12/4/20, PDF). “With those principles in mind, in addition to vacating the Wolf
    Memorandum, the court orders the following relief: …”
  • Memorandum and Order (filed 11/14/20, PDF). “[T]he court holds that Mr. Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act … when he issued the July 28, 2020 memorandum. Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are therefore GRANTED as to their claims under the HSA, and Defendants’ cross-motions are DENIED. … Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED.”
  • Fourth Amended Complaint (filed 8/28/20, PDF). “Plaintiffs … bring this action to challenge the Trump Administration’s latest unlawful attempt to dismantle the DACA program and eviscerate its protections. The Wolf Memorandum violates the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the Homeland Security Act, and must be set aside. So, too, must the implementing memorandum issued by Defendant Edlow …, which violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.”
  • Letter to Court Re. Pre-Motion Conference Re. Wolf Memorandum (filed 8/6/20, PDF). “We write on behalf of Plaintiffs … to supplement our July 21, 2020, letter in advance of the status conference scheduled for August 13, 2020. … On July 28, 2020, Defendant Chad Wolf issued a memorandum … that drastically alters the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals … program, with immediate and retroactive effect. … Defendant Wolf seeks to dismantle the DACA program without complying with basic principles of administrative and constitutional law. In light of this development, Plaintiffs request to use the August 13 status conference as a pre-motion conference to discuss the future course of this litigation, including Plaintiffs’ intention to seek leave to amend or supplement their complaint to challenge the legality of the Wolf Memorandum.”
  • Amended Memorandum and Order and Preliminary Injunction (filed 2/13/18, PDF). “[T]he court finds that a nationwide injunction is warranted …. First, it is hard to conceive of how the court would craft a narrower injunction that would adequately protect Plaintiffs’ interests. … Furthermore, there is a strong federal interest in the uniformity of federal immigration law. … Because the decision to rescind the DACA program had a ‘systemwide impact,’ the court will preliminarily impose a ‘systemwide remedy.’”
  • Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 12/15/17, PDF). “Unless this Court grants preliminary relief, DACA recipients, their families, and communities will suffer irreparable harm each day that Defendants’ unlawful actions are permitted to remain in place. The imminent harms facing Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class warrant relief, and both the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting it.”
  • Second Amended Complaint (filed 9/19/17, PDF). “Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals face the imminent loss of their eligibility for DACA status due to Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare the termination of DACA unlawful and to enjoin its enforcement.”
  • Letter to Judge Garaufis requesting pre-motion conference about adding DACA-related claims (filed 9/5/17, PDF). “In light of today’s announcement by Attorney General Sessions and termination by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  of the 2012 guidance establishing  Deferred  Action  for  Childhood  Arrivals (DACA), Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add related claims and class allegations and to join additional parties, and, if necessary, to seek emergency or expedited relief.”
  • Amended Complaint (filed 9/29/16, PDF). “Mr. Batalla Vidal and [Make the Road New York] ask this Court to (1) declare that the February 2015 preliminary injunction entered in Texas v. United States does not apply to New York residents; (2) declare unlawful Defendants’ revocation of Mr. Batalla Vidal’s employment authorization, and those of other New York residents; (3) vacate and set aside the unlawful revocations and order the reinstatement of Mr. Batalla Vidal’s three-year employment authorization, and those of other New York residents; and (4) enjoin Defendants from revoking Mr. Batalla Vidal’s employment authorization, and those of other New York residents, on the basis of the injunction in Texas v. United States.”