throbber
Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`LAFAYETTE DIVISION
`
`
`THE STATE OF ARIZONA, By and through
`its Attorney General, MARK BRNOVICH;
`
`THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
`By and through its Attorney General, JEFF
`LANDRY;
`
`THE STATE OF MISSOURI,
`By and through its Attorney General, ERIC S.
`SCHMITT;
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS,
`
`
`v.
`
`CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL &
`PREVENTION;
`
`ROCHELLE WALENSKY , in her official
`capacity as Director of the Centers for
`Disease Control & Prevention;
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HU-
`MAN SERVICES;
`
`XAVIER BECERRA , in his official capacity as
`Secretary of Health and Human Services;
`
`the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`HOMELAND SECURITY;
`
`ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS in his official ca-
`pacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
`
`U.S CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTEC-
`TION;
`
`CHRISTOPHER MAGNUS in his official ca-
`pacity Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Bor-
`der Protection;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 2
`
`U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS EN-
`FORCEMENT;
`
`TAE JOHNSON in his official capacity as Sen-
`ior Official Performing the Duties of Director of
`U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
`
`U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
`SERVICES;
`
`UR M. JADDOU in her official capacity as Di-
`rector of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Ser-
`vices;
`
`U.S. BORDER PATROL;
`
`RAUL ORTIZ in his official capacity as Chief of
`the U.S. Border Patrol;
`
`The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`JUSTICE;
`
`MERRICK GARLAND in his official capacity
`as Attorney General of the United States of
`America;
`
`EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION
`REVIEW;
`
`DAVID NEAL in his official capacity as Direc-
`tor of the Executive Office for Immigration Re-
`view;
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN, J R., in his official
`capacity as President of the United
`States; and
`
`the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
`
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The States of Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri bring this civil action against the above-listed
`
`Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief and allege as follows:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 3
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This suit challenges an imminent, man-made, self-inflicted calamity: the abrupt elim-
`
`1.
`
`ination of the only safety valve preventing this Administration’s disastrous border policies from de-
`
`volving into an unmitigated chaos and catastrophe. Specifically, this action challenges the Biden
`
`Administration’s revocation of Title 42 border control measures, which will, absent judicial relief,
`
`become effective May 23, 2022.
`
`2.
`
`This is not merely the opinion of the Plaintiff States, but also that of some of the
`
`Administration’s ardent supporters. For example, one Democratic Senator observed: “This is the
`
`wrong decision…. [I]t’s clear that this administration’s lack of a plan to deal with this crisis will fur-
`
`ther strain our border communities.”
`
`3.
`
`Similarly, another Democratic Senator explained that the “decision to announce an
`
`end to Title 42 despite not yet having a comprehensive plan ready shows a lack of understanding
`
`about the crisis at our border.”
`
`4.
`
`Eight days prior, these two Democratic Senators wrote a letter to President Biden
`
`telling him: “To date, we have not yet seen evidence that DHS has developed and implemented a
`
`sufficient plan to maintain a humane and orderly process in the event of an end to Title 42.”
`
`5.
`
`A third Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, described the Title 42 revocation as an
`
`outright “frightening decision.”1 He further explained that “[w]e are nowhere near prepared to deal with that
`
`influx. Until we have comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform that commits to securing our
`
`borders and providing a pathway to citizenship for qualified immigrants, Title 42 must stay in place.”2
`
`In addition, “Title 42 has been an essential tool in combatting the spread of COVID-19 and control-
`
`
`1 Joe Manchin, Title 42 Must Stay In Place Until We Have Major Immigration Reforms (April 1, 2022)
`https://bit.ly/37azEI0 (emphasis added).
`2 Id. (emphasis added).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 4
`
`ling the influx of migrants at our southern border,” said Senator Manchin.3 “We are already facing
`
`an unprecedented increase in migrants this year, and that will only get worse if the Administration
`
`ends the Title 42 policy.”4
`
`6.
`
`And a fourth Democratic Senator, Maggie Hassan, similarly declared that: “Ending
`
`Title 42 prematurely will likely lead to a migrant surge that the administration does not appear to be
`
`ready for.”5
`
`7.
`
`And these are just the opinions of Senators of President Biden’s own party—hardly
`
`disinterested, neutral observers. To be fair, these views appear to be widely shared—though in
`
`more-circumspect/less-candid statements—by many members of the Biden Administration itself,
`
`even at the highest levels. For example, the White House’s own Communications Director, Kate
`
`Bedingfield, outright admitted that the Administration “ha[s] every expectation that when the CDC
`
`ultimately decides it’s appropriate to lift Title 42, there will be an influx of people to the border.”6
`
`8.
`
`Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana similarly criticized the Biden Administration’s
`
`plans, stating “Removing Title 42 is a mistake that will encourage another wave of illegal migration
`
`and drug trafficking to overwhelm the Southern border. There is no justification for this.” See Press
`
`Release, Cassidy Reacts
`
`to Rescinding Trump-Era Policy
`
`to Stop Mass Migration,
`
`www.cassidy.senate.gov.
`
`9.
`
`The National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, similarly declared:
`
`“We know this is going to cause chaos of epic proportions.”7 He also noted the obvious incongruity of
`
`
`3 Id.
`4 Id.
`5 https://twitter.com/SenatorHassan/status/1509936999267983364
`6 Catherine E. Shoichet, We're expecting a big increase in migrants at the US-Mexico border. But this time is
`different, CNN, (April 1, 2022) (emphasis added), https://cnn.it/3LrtLoC.
`7 Adam Shaw, Border Patrol agents bracing for new migrant wave if Title 42 lifts: 'We are expecting to get
`wrecked, Fox News, (Mar, 31, 2022), https://fxn.ws/3uKEx2B
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 5
`
`Administration policy: “We can’t even fly on airplanes without masks, but we’re going to end Title
`
`42 which is going to cause the single largest [in]flux of illegal immigration in our history?”8 “It’s im-
`
`possible for me to overstate how demoralized the average agent is,” Judd said. “They’re asking
`
`themselves, ‘Why am I putting on this uniform?’ every day. This administration is responsible for the
`
`single largest crisis on the border and they’re about to make it worse.”9
`
`10.
`
`Similarly, DHS put out an official “fact sheet” in anticipation of the Title 42 revoca-
`
`tion declaring that “There is broad agreement that our immigration system is fundamentally broken.”10
`
`But the Administration’s “answer” to that problem is to break it further.
`
`11.
`
`Other DHS officials, shielded by anonymity, have been even more candid, explaining
`
`that “ending Title 42 would lead to what one DHS agent described as a ‘surge on top of a surge.’”11
`
`12.
`
`One anonymous agent succinctly explained the sentiment at the Border Patrol: “We
`
`are expecting to get wrecked.”12
`
`13.
`
`The Center for Disease Control’s (“CDC’s”) April 1, 2022 order revoking its prior
`
`Title 42 policy is also plainly at war with other policies of the Biden Administration. The Title 42
`
`Termination is expressly premised on the “rapid[] decrease” of COVID-19 cases following the re-
`
`cent wave of the Omicron variant of the virus. Ex. A at 12. But the Administration has not seen fit
`
`elsewhere to act upon these improvements by, for example, lifting the mask mandate on airline trav-
`
`
`8 Id.
`9 Callie Patteson and MaryAnn Martinez, Immigration authority Title 42 to be terminated on May 23, CDC
`says, NY Post (Apr. 1, 2022), https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/title-42-to-be-terminated-on-may-
`23-cdc-says/.
`10 DHS, Fact Sheet: DHS Preparations for a Potential Increase in Migration (Mar. 30, 2022),
`https://bit.ly/3j3LEgR.
`11 Adam Shaw and Peter Hasson, Border Patrol agents bracing for new migrant wave if Title 42 lifts: “We are
`expecting to get wrecked”, Fox News (Mar. 31, 2022), https://fxn.ws/3IZjApt.
`12 Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 6
`
`el,13 or loosening or repealing its vaccination mandates,14 or ending its relentless campaign to dis-
`
`charge members of our military who have applied for religious exemptions for vaccination require-
`
`ments—which have been almost uniformly denied.15 The Title 42 Revocation thus stands as a radi-
`
`cal outlier—seemingly the only COVID-19-based restriction the Administration sees fit to end.
`
`14.
`
`But the CDC’s Termination Order is not merely unfathomably bad public policy. It
`
`is also profoundly illegal. That is principally so for two reasons: (1) Defendants unlawfully flouted
`
`the notice-and-comment requirements for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(“APA”) and (2) Defendants’ Termination Order is arbitrary and capricious, thus violating the APA,
`
`because it has numerous omissions that each independently render it illegal.
`
`15.
`
`First, the notice-and-comment violation: Defendants do not deny that the Termina-
`
`tion Order would ordinarily be subject to the requirement of providing notice of a proposed rule,
`
`taking comment upon it, and responding to those comments. They seek to excuse their flouting of
`
`that requirement for two reasons: they invoke the “good cause” and “foreign affairs” exceptions of
`
`5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) and (b)(3)(B). But neither applies.
`
`13 Jonathan Franklin, U.S. airline CEOs call on President Biden to end the federal mask mandate on planes,
`NPR (Mar. 24, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088669929/airlines-federal-travel-mask-
`mandate (noting request from airline CEOs to the Biden Administration that the air travel mask
`mandate be lifted, and noting that “the White House has not yet commented on the group's re-
`quest).
`14 E.g., Georgia v. Biden, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2021 WL 5779939 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2021) (granting na-
`tionwide preliminary injunction of federal contractor vaccine mandate); Georgia v. Biden, 21-cv-00163,
`ECF No. 96 (S.D. Ga. Dec 9, 2021) (federal government’s notice of appeal of nationwide injunction
`of federal contractor vaccine mandate); Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2022 WL
`188329, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022) (granting nationwide preliminary injunction of federal em-
`ployee vaccine mandate); Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, 21-cv-00356, ECF No. 37 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21,
`2022) (federal government’s notice of appeal of nationwide injunction of federal employee vaccine
`mandate).
`15 E.g., U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2022 WL 34443, at *1, *13, and *14 (N.D.
`Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) (“[t]he Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine in recent
`memory”; noting punitive measures taken against Navy SEALS who refused to take vaccine, includ-
`ing threat of discharge from military; and enjoining military vaccine mandate); U.S. Navy SEALs 1-
`26 v. Biden, 21-cv-01236, ECF No. 82 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022) (federal government’s notice of ap-
`peal). .
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 7
`
`16.
`
`As to the good cause exception, CDC argues that “it would be impracticable and
`
`contrary to the public interest” to take public comments on the Title 42 Revocation, and that DHS
`
`“need[s] time to implement an orderly and safe termination of the order.” Order at 29. These skele-
`
`tal assertions fail to satisfy the good cause exception for four reasons.
`
`17.
`
`First, CDC had ample time to take public comment on revoking Title 42 and lacks any
`
`pressing need or minimally persuasive excuse for failing to do so. President Biden issued an execu-
`
`tive order on February 2, 2021, directing CDC and DHS to consider rescinding Title 42. Defendants
`
`thus had one day short of fourteen months to take public comment on potentially rescinding Title 42.
`
`They simply refused to do so. That willful failure to take public comments in that time is not “good
`
`cause” under the APA.
`
`18.
`
`Second, Defendants ignore that while the initial promulgation of Title 42 invoked the
`
`good cause exception—because its issuance was during the rapidly unfolding beginning of the
`
`Covid-19 pandemic—the same is not true here. This Order arises two full years into the pandemic,
`
`where it is waning in some areas while a new variant threatens others. The exigency of the initial or-
`
`der simply does not exist here. There is no “pandemic exception” to notice-and-comment require-
`
`ments, particularly two years into that pandemic.
`
`19.
`
`Third, the CDC ignores that it did take public comment on the initial Title 42 Order
`
`under the Trump Administration, from March 24 to April 24, 2022, and then issued a final rule less
`
`than five months after the comment period closed. 85 Fed. Reg. 56424, 56488 (Sept. 11, 2020).
`
`There is no reason that the CDC could not have taken the same approach again here—and the CDC
`
`certainly does not supply any. The CDC is thus simply wrong in contending that the “extraordinary
`
`nature” of Title 42 orders necessarily eliminates the APA’s requirement for taking public comment,
`
`as itsown actions demonstrate.
`
`20.
`
`Fourth, the CDC’s rationale is self-refuting: if Defendants “need time” to implement
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 8
`
`the Title 42 revocation, which the Order effectively concedes will be extraordinarily challenging, that
`
`is a reason to take comments so the agency can have the benefit of public input and can use the
`
`needed time to obtain it. Moreover, the disaster that the Administration correctly predicts could
`
`easily be less calamitous if they take suggestions from the public and states and incorporate those
`
`suggestions. But the CDC’s arrogant assertion that there is no value to be had from public commenting
`
`does not constitute “good cause.”
`
`21.
`
`As to the foreign affairs exception, the CDC offers only a single unspecific sentence
`
`contending that “this Order concerns ongoing discussions with Canada, Mexico, and other countries
`
`regarding immigration and how best to control COVID-19 transmission over shared borders.” Or-
`
`der at 29. That is patently insufficient.
`
`22.
`
`The “foreign affairs exception applies in the immigration context only when ordinary
`
`application of the public rulemaking provisions [i.e., taking public comment] will provoke definitely unde-
`
`sirable international consequences.” East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 775–76 (9th Cir.
`
`2018) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). But the CDC does not identify any potential “undesirable in-
`
`ternational consequences,” let alone establish with certainty that such consequences will occur. In-
`
`stead, the CDC’s order merely alludes to the fact that the Administration is engaged in unspecified
`
`talks with Canada and Mexico about Covid-19. That is woefully insufficient. The Administration
`
`cannot evade notice-and-comment requirements by the expedient of simply talking with its neigh-
`
`boring countries about the same subject in lieu of seeking comment from its own citizens. But that
`
`is all Defendants offer here.
`
`23.
`
`For these reasons, neither the good cause nor foreign affairs exceptions apply here.
`
`The CDC’s refusal to take public comment thus violates the APA and alone requires invalidation of
`
`the Termination Order.
`
`24.
`
`That conclusion is perhaps unsurprising. The Biden Administration’s violation of no-
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 9
`
`tice-and-comment requirements in the immigration context is by now notorious with federal courts.
`
`See, e.g., Arizona v. Biden, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2022 WL 839672, at *36 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2022)
`
`(holding that Plaintiffs states had established “strong likelihood the States prevail on their notice-
`
`and-comment claim” against DHS Permanent Guidance severely restricting immigration enforce-
`
`ment); Texas v. United States, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 3683913, at *51-58 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19,
`
`2021) (holding that DHS’s issuance of Interim Guidance, which similarly and severely reduced re-
`
`movals of aliens with criminal convictions, violated notice-and-comment requirements); Texas v
`
`United States, 524 F. Supp. 3d 598, 656-62 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (holding same for 100-day moratorium
`
`on immigration removals). Indeed, at oral argument Justice Kagan recently observed another poten-
`
`tial violation by DHS, explaining that “[t]he real issue to me is [DHS’s] evasion of notice-and-
`
`comment.”16
`
`25.
`
`The Termination Order also violates the APA as arbitrary and capricious decision-
`
`making. “[A]gency action is lawful only if it rests on a consideration of the relevant factors” and
`
`considers all “important aspects of the problem.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750-52 (2015) (re-
`
`quiring “reasoned decisionmaking”). This means agencies must “examine all relevant factors and
`
`record evidence.” Am. Wild Horse Pres. Campaign v. Perdue, 873 F.3d 914, 923 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
`
`26.
`
`The CDC’s Order is arbitrary and capricious most obviously because it expressly re-
`
`fuses to analyze the impacts it will have upon the States. That is, after all, an “important aspect of
`
`the problem.” Michigan, 576 U.S. at 752. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized “the
`
`importance of immigration policy to the States,” particularly as the States “bear[] many of the con-
`
`sequences of unlawful immigration. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 397 (2012)
`
`27.
`
`The CDC does not even attempt to deny that its Title 42 Termination Order will
`
`
`16 Transcript at 47-48, Arizona v. San Francisco, No. 20-1775 (Feb. 23, 2022) available at
`https://bit.ly/3itwfq7
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 10
`
`impose enormous costs upon the States. Nor did it make any attempt to analyze those substantial
`
`harms—even though it was legally required to do so under the APA. See, e.g., Arizona v. Biden, 2022
`
`WL 839672, at *30 (holding that DHS violated APA by providing “no explanation of how its poli-
`
`cy—that relaxes mandatory detention standards set by Congress—might increase state criminal jus-
`
`tice expenses”); Texas v. United States, 2021 WL 3683913, at *49 (explicitly rejecting “the Govern-
`
`ment’s argument that it need not consider the States’ costs and expenses stemming from the new
`
`[immigration] guidelines” under the APA). Defendants thus violated the APA by failing to consider
`
`the impacts of their Order on the States, which is manifestly an “important aspect of the problem.”
`
`Michigan, 576 U.S. at 752.
`
`28.
`
`Rather than attempting to analyze the costs that its Order will impose on the States
`
`whatsoever, CDC denies that it has any obligation to consider those harms at all. Instead, it reasons
`
`that “no state or local government could be said to have legitimately relied on the CDC [Title 42]
`
`Orders … because those orders are, by their very nature, short-term orders, authorized only when
`
`specified statutory criteria are met, and subject to change at any time in response to an evolving pub-
`
`lic health crisis.” Order at 23.
`
`29.
`
`The CDC’s argument fails for two reasons. First, regardless of the purported illegiti-
`
`macy of the State’s reliance on the CDC’s Title 42 Orders, the CDC still had an obligation to con-
`
`sider the harms to the States since that is an “important aspect of the problem.” Michigan, 576 U.S. at
`
`752. The CDC has no license to inflict wanton harms on the States without at least first considering
`
`what the magnitude of those harms might be and whether they could be mitigated if the agency con-
`
`sidered alternatives with those harms in mind. See, e.g., id. at 759 (explain that agencies “must con-
`
`sider cost … before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary”). Here the CDC
`
`failed to do so—and indeed expressly refused to consider those harms. Defendants’ APA violation is
`
`thus explicit and admitted.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 11
`
`30.
`
`Second, even if the CDC were correct that the “short-term” nature of the Title 42 Or-
`
`ders—which have been in place for two entire years and counting—meant that the States could rely
`
`on the Orders being in place permanently, the States still could reasonably rely on the CDC not to re-
`
`voke the Orders abruptly at a truly terrible time to do so. The Order’s timing will greatly exacerbate
`
`an already extant meltdown of operational control at the southern border—which even the Admin-
`
`istration and its supporters fully expect. Supra ¶¶2-7, 10. Simply put, the States could reasonably rely
`
`on the CDC not suddenly revoking its Title 42 Orders now, thereby stacking crisis upon crisis—or
`
`in the words of DHS officer, inflicting a “surge on top of a surge.”
`
`31.
`
`A second principal deficiency of the Termination Order is that it fails to analyze
`
`meaningfully the entirely predictable—and actually predicted—surge of illegal migration that it will
`
`cause. Indeed, the Administration has internally predicted that the Termination Order could triple
`
`the daily number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the border. See infra ¶¶ 90. But the Termination
`
`Order never meaningfully analyzes these impacts or considers ways in which they might be mitigat-
`
`ed.
`
`32.
`
`These are only the most flagrant of the defects of the Order. It is also arbitrary and
`
`capricious because it, for example, (1) failed to consider alternative effective dates, (2) failed to con-
`
`sider DHS’s inability to cope with the resulting surge and failure to plan adequately for it, (3) failed
`
`to consider the impacts of the fact that there are huge numbers of aliens waiting at the southern bor-
`
`der to cross the moment that Title 42 is rescinded, and (4) failed to consider the cumulative effects
`
`of the rescission of the Title 42 rescission with the Administration’s attempted termination of the
`
`Migrant Protection Protocol, see Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 990 (5th Cir. 2021) cert. granted, 142 S.
`
`Ct. 1098 (2022), whose impacts will snowball upon each other.
`
`33.
`
`For all of these reasons, the CDC’s Title 42 Termination Order violates the APA
`
`many times over. This Court should accordingly “hold unlawful and set aside” that Order. 5 U.S.C.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 12
`
`§ 706(2).
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff State of Arizona is a sovereign state of the United States of America. Arizo-
`
`34.
`
`na sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. Arizona brings this suit
`
`through its Attorney General, Mark Brnovich. He is the chief legal officer of the State of Arizona
`
`and has the authority to represent the State in federal court. His offices are located at 2005 North
`
`Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff State of Louisiana is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Lou-
`
`isiana sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. Louisiana brings this
`
`suit through its Attorney General, Jeff Landry. He is authorized by Louisiana law to sue on the
`
`State’s behalf. His offices are located at 1885 North Third Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff State of Missouri is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Mis-
`
`souri sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. Missouri brings this
`
`suit through its Attorney General, Eric S. Schmitt. He is authorized by Missouri law to sue on the
`
`State’s behalf. His address is P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
`
`37.
`
`Defendants are officials of the United States government and United States govern-
`
`mental agencies responsible for promulgating or implementing the Rule.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is constituent agency of the
`
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). It conducts specified functions under the
`
`Public Health Service Act, including exercising authority delegated by HHS.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Rochelle Walensky is the Director of the CDC. She is sued in her official
`
`capacity.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is an executive depart-
`
`ment of the United States Government.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 13
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant Xavier Becerra is the Secretary of HHS. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an executive
`
`department of the United States Government.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of Homeland Security and therefore
`
`the “head” of DHS with “direction, authority, and control over it.” 6 U.S.C. § 112(a)(2). Defendant
`
`Mayorkas is sued in his official capacity.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“USBP”) is an agency within DHS
`
`that is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant Christopher Magnus serves as Commissioner of USBP. Defendant Mag-
`
`nus is sued in his official capacity.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is an agency within
`
`DHS that is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant Tae Johnson serves as Acting Director of ICE. Defendant Johnson is
`
`sued in his official capacity.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is an agency within
`
`DHS that is headquartered in Camp Springs, Maryland.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant Ur Jaddou serves as the Director for USCIS. Defendant Jaddou is sued in
`
`her official capacity.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant U.S. Border Patrol is an agency within DHS that is headquartered in
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Raul Ortiz serves as the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.
`
`Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an executive department of the United
`
`States Government.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 14
`
`53.
`
`Defendant Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of the United States of America.
`
`He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) is an agency within
`
`DOJ that is headquartered in Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant David Neal is Director of EOIR. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`Defendant Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is the President of the United States. He is sued in
`
`his official capacity.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant the United States of America is sued under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702–703 and 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1346 and includes the departments and agencies thereof.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case because it arises under the
`
`58.
`
`Constitution and laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1346, 1361; 5 U.S.C. §§701-06.
`
`59.
`
`An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§2201(a), and this Court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other relief under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§2201-02, 5 U.S.C. §§705-06, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and its inherent equitable powers.
`
`60.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1) because (1) Defendants
`
`are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities, (2) the State of Louisiana is a
`
`resident of this judicial district, (3) no real property is involved, and (4) a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint occur within this judicial district. See Atlanta & F.R.
`
`Co. v. W. Ry. Co. of Ala., 50 F. 790, 791 (5th Cir. 1982); Ass’n of Cmty. Cancer Centers v. Azar, 509 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 482 (D. Md. 2020).
`
`FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
`The INA’s Requirements
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 15
`
`61.
`
`The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, and the Immi-
`
`gration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., charge DHS with enforcing the United States’
`
`immigration laws. Under the immigration laws, “several classes of aliens are ‘inadmissible’ and there-
`
`fore ‘removable.’” Dept. of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S.Ct. 1959, 1964 (2020), citing 8 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1182, 1229a(e)(2)(A). Among these classes are aliens who lack a valid entry document when they
`
`apply for admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(l). This includes aliens who arrive in the United
`
`States and aliens who are present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted, who
`
`are deemed to have applied for admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
`
`62.
`
`An inadmissible alien may be removed; the usual process involves an evidentiary
`
`hearing before an immigration judge at which the alien may present evidence and argue against re-
`
`moval. Thuraissigiam, 140 S.Ct. at 1964. However, this process is slow, and while “removal is being
`
`litigated, the alien will either be detained, at considerable expense, or allowed to reside in this coun-
`
`try, with the attendant risk that he or she may not later be found.” Id.
`
`63.
`
`To address these problems, Congress created more expedited procedures that apply
`
`to aliens who are “present in the United States who [have] not been admitted” and to aliens “who
`
`arrive[] in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival ...)[.]” 8 U.S.C. §
`
`1225(a)(1).
`
`64.
`
`These aliens are subject to expedited removal if they (1) are inadmissible because
`
`they lack a valid entry document; (2) have not “been physically present in the United States continu-
`
`ously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility”;
`
`and (3) are among those whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has designated for expedited
`
`removal. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(A). Once an immigration officer determines that such an alien is inadmissi-
`
`ble, the alien must be ordered “removed from the United States without further hearing or review.”
`
`Id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00885-RRS-CBW Document 1 Filed 04/03/22 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 16
`
`65. Whether subject to the standard removal process or the expedited process, aliens
`
`who intend to claim asylum or who claim a credible fear of persecution are not deportable while that
`
`claim is being investigated. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1225(b)(1). But those aliens must be detained until
`
`their entitlement to asylum is determined. Id. § 1225(b)(2).
`
`66.
`
`It has been generally accepted that DHS has the discretion as to whether to place al-
`
`iens, other than unaccompanied children, into the standard removal process or into expedited re-
`
`moval. See, e.g., Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509, 510 (A.G. 2019); Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25
`
`I&N Dec. 520, 524 (BIA 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D) (exception). Whichever path DHS chooses,
`
`aliens placed in removal proceedings must be detained until DHS has finished considering the asy-
`
`lum application or the removal proceedings. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 844–45 (2018),
`
`(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), (2)). DHS may “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
`
`benefit” temporarily parole these aliens, but it may do so “only on a case-by-case basis.” 8 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1182(d)(5)(A).
`
`67.
`
`Another class of inadmissible aliens is those who have a “communicable disease of
`
`public health significance[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)(i). The INA defines a “communicable disease
`
`of public health significance” by referring to “regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and
`
`Human Services.” Id.
`
`68.
`
`There are two circumstances under which aliens must be detained to determine
`
`whether they are inadmissible for public-health reasons. First,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket