`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`
`DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,
`PETITIONERS
`v.
`
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`JOINT APPENDIX
`(VOLUME 2)
`
`
`NOEL J. FRANCISCO
`Solicitor General
`Department of Justice
`Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
`SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
`(202) 514-2217
`
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Petitioners
`
` ROBERT ALLEN LONG, JR.
`Covington & Burling, LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth St., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`rlong@cov.com
`(202) 662-5612
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`Regents of the University
` of California and
` Janet Napolitano
`
`(No. 18-587)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: NOV. 5, 2018
`CERTIORARI GRANTED: JUNE 28, 2019
`Additional Captions and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
`ET AL., PETITIONERS
`v.
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
`COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL.
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF
`HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
`v.
`MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL.
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`Additional Counsel For Respondents
`
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
` LLP
`333 South Grand Ave.
`Los Angeles, CA. 90071
`tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`(213) 229-7804
`
`Counsel of Record
`
`for Respondents
` Dulce Garcia, Miriam
` Gonzalez Avila, Saul
` Jimenez Suarez, Viridiana
` Chabolla Mendoza, Norma
` Ramirez, and Jirayut
` Latthivongskorn
` (No. 18-587)
`
` MICHAEL JAMES MONGAN
`Solicitor General
`California Department of
` Justice
`455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000
`San Francisco, CA. 94102
`michael.mongan@doj.ca.gov
`(415) 510-3920
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`States of California, Maine,
` Maryland, and Minnesota
`
`(No. 18-587)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STACEY M. LEYTON
`Altshuler Berzon, LLP
`177 Post St., Suite 300
`San Francisco, CA. 94108
`sleyton@altshulerberzon.com
`(415) 421-7151
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`County of Santa Clara and
` Service Employees
` International Union
` Local 521 (No. 18-587)
`
`
`LINDSAY C. HARRISON
`Jenner & Block, LLP
`1099 New York Ave., N.W.
`Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`lharrison@jenner.com
`(202) 639-6000
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`Princeton University,
` Microsoft Corporation, and
` Maria De La Cruz Perales
` Sanchez (No. 18-588)
`
`MICHAEL J. WISHNIE
`William O. Douglas Clinical
` Professor of Law and
` Counselor to the Dean
`Yale Law School
`127 Wall Street
`New Haven, CT. 06511
`michael.wishnie@yale.edu
`(203) 436-4780
`
`JAMES R. WILLIAMS
`Office of the County Counsel
`County of Santa Clara
`70 West Hedding St.
`East Wing, Ninth Floor
`San Jose, CA. 95110
`(408) 299-5900
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`County of Santa Clara
`(No. 18-587)
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH M. SELLERS
`Cohen Milsten Sellers & Toll
` PLLC
`1100 New York Ave., N.W.
`Fif th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
`(202) 408-4600
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`NAACP, American Federation
` of Teachers, and United Food
` and Commercial Workers
` International Union
` (No. 18-588)
`
`
`BARBARA DALE UNDERWOOD
`Solicitor General
`New York Attorney General’s
` Office
`28 Liberty St.
`New York, N.Y. 10005
`barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov
`(212) 416-8016
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
`Martin Jonathan Batalla
` Vidal, et al. (No. 18-589)
`
`
`
`Counsel of Record
`for Respondents
` State of New York, et al.
`(No. 18-589)
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Volume 1
`Relevant docket entries (18-587):
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15068) .................... 1
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15069) .................. 28
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15070) .................. 55
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15071) .................. 82
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15072) ................ 108
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15128) ................ 136
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15133) ................ 162
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-15134) ................ 188
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05211) ................ 214
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05235) ................ 222
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05329) ................ 225
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05380) ................ 229
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05813) ................ 233
`Relevant docket entries (18-588):
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-5243) .................. 237
`District court docket entries (17-cv-01907) ................ 241
`District court docket entries (17-cv-02325) ............... 246
`Relevant docket entries (18-589):
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-122) .................... 258
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-123) .................... 262
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-485) .................... 267
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-488) .................... 292
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1313) .................. 314
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1314) .................. 317
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1521) .................. 320
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1525) .................. 327
`
`(I)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II
`
`Page
`Table of Contents—Continued:
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1985) .................. 333
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1986) .................. 338
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1987) .................. 343
`Court of appeals docket entries (18-1988) .................. 349
`District court docket entries (16-cv-04756) ................ 354
`District court docket entries (17-cv-05228) ................ 365
`
`Volume 2
`Relevant pleadings (18-587):
`Complaint (17-cv-05813) (Oct. 10, 2017) ...................... 376
`Complaint (17-cv-05380) (Sept. 18, 2017) .................... 416
`Complaint (17-cv-05329) (Sept. 14, 2017) .................... 480
`Complaint (17-cv-05235) (Sept. 11, 2017) .................... 504
`Complaint (17-cv-05211) (Sept. 8, 2017) ...................... 555
`Relevant pleadings (18-588):
`Complaint (17-cv-02325) (Nov. 3, 2017) ....................... 580
`Amended complaint (17-cv-01907)
` (Oct. 23, 2017) .......................................................... 630
`Relevant pleadings (18-589):
`Third amended complaint (16-cv-04756)
` (Dec. 11, 2017) ......................................................... 652
`Amended complaint (17-cv-05228)
` (Oct. 4, 2017) ............................................................ 706
`
`
`Excerpts from administrative record:
`Office of Legal Counsel, Memorandum on
`The Department of Homeland Security’s
`Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain
`Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United
`States and to Defer Removal of Others
`(Nov. 19, 2014) .......................................................... 797
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III
`
`Page
`
`Table of Contents—Continued:
`Memorandum on Enforcement of the
`Immigration Laws to Serve the National
`Interest (Feb. 20, 2017) ........................................... 857
`Memorandum on Rescission of Memorandum
`Providing for Deferred Action for Parents of
`Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents
`(June 15, 2017) ......................................................... 868
`Letter from State Attorneys General to
`Attorney General of the United States
`(June 29, 2017) ......................................................... 872
`Letter from Attorney General to Acting
`Secretary of Homeland Security
`(Sept. 4, 2017) ........................................................... 877
`
`
`Other materials from the record:
`Declaration of Maria De La Cruz Perales
`Sanchez in support of motion for summary
`judgment and motion for preliminary injunc-
`tion (17-cv-02325 D. Ct. Doc. 28-8)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................................... 879
`Declaration of Eliana Fernandez in support of
`motion for preliminary injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-13)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................................... 889
`Declaration of Carolina Fung Feng in support of
`motion for preliminary injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-13)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................................... 894
`Declaration of Martin Batalla Vidal in support of
`motion for preliminary injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-13)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................................... 902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV
`
`Page
`
`Table of Contents—Continued:
`Declaration of Jirayut Latthivongskorn in
`support of motion for provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 118-1)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 915
`Declaration of Dulce Garcia in support of motion
`for provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 117)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 932
`Declaration of Mitchell Santos Toledo in support
`of motion for provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 119-1)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 953
`Declaration of Joel Sati in support of motion for
`provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 119-1)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 965
`Letter from President to House and Senate lead-
`ers, attached to motion for provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 124)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 981
`U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
`Number of Form I-821D, Consideration of
`Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Fis-
`cal Year 2012-2017, attached to complaint
`(17-cv-05235 D. Ct. Doc. 1-3)
`(Sept. 11, 2017) ......................................................... 996
`Justice News: Attorney General Sessions Deliv-
`ers Remarks on DACA, attached to motion
`for provisional relief
`(17-cv-05211 D. Ct. Doc. 121-2)
`(Nov. 1, 2017) ............................................................ 999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`Page
`
`Table of Contents—Continued:
`Excerpt from deposition of Gene Hamilton, at-
`tached to motion for preliminary injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-9)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................................ 1005
`Excerpt from defendant’s objections and re-
`sponses to plaintiff s’ first set of requests for
`admission to Acting Secretary of Homeland
`Security, attached to motion for preliminary
`injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-4)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................................ 1008
`Excerpt from defendant’s objections and re-
`sponses to plaintiffs’ first set of requests for
`admission to Attorney General, attached to
`motion for preliminary injunction
`(16-cv-04756 D. Ct. Doc. 123-4)
`(Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................................ 1012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`376
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`(SAN JOSE)
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05813-WHA
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES
`INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521, PLAINTIFFS
`v.
`DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; JEFFERSON
`BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; AND
`ELAINE DUKE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING
`SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
`SECURITY; AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
`SECURITY, DEFENDANTS
`
`Filed: Oct. 10, 2017
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs County of Santa Clara (“County”)
`1.
`and Service Employees International Union Local 521
`(“Local 521”), acting in its capacity as the representa-
`tive of more than 10,000 County employees, challenge
`the actions of Defendants President Donald J. Trump,
`Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and
`Acting Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
`Secretary Elaine Duke related to the rescission of the
`Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) pro-
`gram. DACA affords a two-year period of “deferred
`
`
`
`
`
`377
`
`
`
`action” status for young people who were brought to
`this country as children, meaning that recipients are
`not subject to immigration enforcement actions during
`that time. Recipients are also afforded the oppor-
`tunity to receive work authorization, allowing them to
`work legally, report income, and pay taxes. Because
`of DACA, approximately 800,000 young people, brought
`to this country as children, have been able to come out
`of the shadows of American life, work legally to sup-
`port themselves and their families, go to school, pay
`taxes, and participate more fully in their communities.
`The DACA program has been hugely successful. But
`the benefits the program provided communities locally
`and nationally are now at risk, as are the futures of
`DACA recipients.
`2. Because of the stringent requirements govern-
`ing eligibility for the DACA program from its incep-
`tion, DACA recipients are undeniably contributing mem-
`bers of society who pose no threat to public safety or na-
`tional security. These individuals find themselves on
`the wrong side of America’s immigration laws through no
`fault of their own, and have made substantial contribu-
`tions to their communities despite the constant threat
`of removal they faced prior to receiving DACA status.
`3. DACA has conferred innumerable benefits on
`recipients, their families, and their communities. DACA
`recipients can live their lives in the open and more fully
`participate in civic life, including by working legally,
`attending college (and receiving financial aid to do so),
`opening bank accounts, paying taxes, and living free of
`the daily fear of deportation. The families of DACA
`recipients benefit from the higher wages many recipi-
`ents are able to earn and the stability of knowing that
`loved ones will not be separated. The communities in
`
`
`
`
`
`378
`
`
`
`which DACA recipients live benefit not only from the
`taxes paid by recipients as they work legally and report
`income, but also from DACA recipients’ increased will-
`ingness to interact with government institutions, such
`as by contacting and cooperating with law enforcement.
`4.
`To induce individuals to apply for DACA, the
`federal government assured potential applicants that
`the information they provided in connection with the
`program would not be used for immigration enforce-
`ment. These representations, made consistently through-
`out the life of the DACA program, were crucial to en-
`couraging participation.
` The government asked
`DACA applicants to take a leap of faith in identifying
`themselves and, indirectly, their families, to the very
`government agency that possesses the authority to de-
`tain them and ultimately to deport them from the coun-
`try. DACA applicants were asked to provide informa-
`tion concerning, among other things, their names, ad-
`dresses, places of birth, dates of entry to the United
`States, and any criminal histories. Because of the
`huge risk undertaken by DACA applicants in providing
`this information to the federal government, most were
`willing to do so only in reliance on the government’s re-
`peated assurances that this information would not be
`used for immigration enforcement purposes.
`5.
`The DACA program also provided recipients
`the opportunity to renew their deferred action status at
`the end of each two-year period for which status is
`granted. From the time that DACA was implemented
`until Defendants’ recent actions, the federal govern-
`ment has consistently assured DACA applicants that
`they will remain eligible for renewed status and work
`authorization as long as they comply with all of the
`conditions of the program. This opportunity to renew
`
`
`
`
`
`379
`
`
`
`is a critical aspect of the program because it would
`make little sense for individuals to risk coming forward
`to identify themselves as lacking regular immigration
`status in exchange for a temporary benefit. Similarly,
`it would make little sense for employers, like the Coun-
`ty, to expend the time and resources to hire and train
`DACA recipients if their work authorization were so
`limited.
`6. Despite the program’s extensive benefits, on
`September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary Duke issued a
`memorandum formally rescinding DACA. The mem-
`orandum stated that DHS would not consider any ini-
`tial DACA applications received after September 5,
`2017 and explained that those individuals who current-
`ly have DACA status and work authorization would no
`longer be able to renew that status after October 5,
`2017. Unlike the administrative actions creating the
`DACA program, which afforded officials significant
`discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis when it is
`appropriate to grant deferred action status and work
`authorization, the policy announced by Acting Secre-
`tary Duke’s September 5 memorandum is categorical—
`the DACA program is discontinued and no individual,
`no matter how deserving, will be able to apply for de-
`ferred action and work authorization pursuant to
`DACA. Acting Secretary Duke’s memorandum did
`not explain the administration’s reasons for rescinding
`DACA (other than to speculate that it may be held
`unlawful, despite the federal government’s previous
`position to the contrary), and gave no indication that
`the administration had considered the benefits of the
`program before ending it so abruptly.
`7. Defendants’ actions in rescinding the DACA
`program are unlawful. First, they violate the Due
`
`
`
`
`
`380
`
`
`
`Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because they
`deprive Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected inter-
`ests, including Plaintiffs’ interests in their mutual em-
`ployment agreements and DACA recipients’ interest in
`the continuation of the DACA program, upon which
`they have been induced to rely. Indeed, the DACA
`program permitted recipients to work legally, to par-
`ticipate in other government programs, to open bank
`accounts, and to participate in civic life in myriad ways
`which will now be unavailable to them. Each of these
`activities gives rise to an interest protected by the Due
`Process Clause. Yet, deprivation of these interests
`has been accomplished without the due process required
`by law. Moreover, insofar as the government uses the
`information provided by DACA applicants for immi-
`gration enforcement purposes—and having broken one
`promise, there is no reason to believe that Defendants
`intend to keep this subsidiary promise—such use will
`independently violate the Due Process Clause. Under
`the Due Process Clause the government may not in-
`duce vulnerable individuals to share information to ob-
`tain a benefit with the promise that such information
`will not be used against them, only to turn around and
`use that information against them. Immigration en-
`forcement, like all government law enforcement, must
`be fundamentally fair.
`8.
`Second, Defendants’ actions violate the Admin-
`istrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),
`because they constitute arbitrary and capricious decision-
`making. Indeed, this case presents an archetypal ex-
`ample of arbitrary decision-making in that Defendants
`have terminated a program implemented five years
`ago, and upon which millions of Americans (DACA
`recipients, their families, and employers) have come to
`rely, with no explanation whatsoever for the abrupt
`
`
`
`
`
`381
`
`
`
`about-face, much less the type of careful analysis one
`would expect before such a consequential action is
`taken. The APA requires that administrative agen-
`cies provide a reasoned explanation for their actions,
`and this obligation is especially important where the
`agency action in question reverses a prior policy that
`has engendered reliance by affected parties. Defen-
`dants’ total disregard for Plaintiffs’ and similarly situ-
`ated parties’ reliance on the DACA program is evident
`in their failure to provide any reasoned explanation for
`the rescission that takes into account the program’s
`benefits.
`9.
`Third, Defendants’ actions violate the Equal
`Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The
`Fifth Amendment requires that the federal govern-
`ment afford all individuals equal protection of the laws
`and refrain from discriminating against disfavored
`classes. In this case, it is inarguable that the rescis-
`sion of DACA falls most heavily on two historically
`persecuted minorities, Latinos and Mexican immi-
`grants. Indeed, 93% of the approved DACA applica-
`tions (initial and renewal) since the program was im-
`plemented are from immigrants from Latin America
`and almost 80% are from immigrants from Mexico.
`Moreover, there is extensive evidence, not least of
`which are the President’s own statements, that the re-
`scission was motivated by impermissible animus. Two
`years ago, the President launched his campaign by an-
`nouncing: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not
`sending their best. . . . They’re sending people that
`have lots of problems, and they’re bring those prob-
`lems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re
`bringing crime. They’re rapists.” This hostility to-
`ward immigrants, and particularly Mexican immigrants,
`remained a theme throughout his campaign and the
`
`
`
`
`
`382
`
`
`
`first months of his administration. Coupled with the
`lack of a legitimate explanation for the rescission and
`the irregular (and unlawful) process by which the re-
`scission was accomplished, the President’s repeated
`statements of animus show that the rescission was
`motivated by animus in violation of the Fifth Amend-
`ment.
`10. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs ask this
`Court to declare the rescission of DACA unlawful and
`unenforceable, and to enjoin and restrain Defendants
`from taking further steps to rescind the program.
`Further, the Court should declare that Defendants are
`equitably estopped from rescinding the program or
`using information provided in connection with DACA
`applications for purposes of immigration enforcement,
`and should enjoin and restrain Defendants from doing
`so. The DACA program has worked to the benefit of
`DACA recipients, their employers, local communities,
`and American society as a whole. All of these stake-
`holders deserve better.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`to
`11. This Court has
`jurisdiction pursuant
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and 2201-2202, because this
`action arises under the Due Process Clause and Equal
`Protection component of the Fifth Amendment and the
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
`This Court has additional remedial authority under the
`APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06.
`12. There exists an actual and justiciable contro-
`versy between Plaintiffs and Defendants requiring res-
`olution by this Court. Plaintiffs have no adequate rem-
`edy at law.
`
`
`
`
`
`383
`
`
`
`13. Venue is proper in the Northern District of
`California because Plaintiff County of Santa Clara is a
`public entity in this judicial district and a substantial
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action
`have occurred or will occur in this District. 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1391(b)(2), 1391(e)(1). Plaintiff Local 521 is located
`in the Northern District of California and many of its
`members, on behalf of whom it brings this lawsuit, re-
`side and are employed within the Northern District of
`California. This is a civil action in which Defendants
`are agencies of the United States or officers thereof
`and no real property is involved in this action.
`14.
`Intra-district assignment is proper in San Jose
`pursuant to Local Rules 3-2(c) and (e) because a sub-
`stantial part of the events or omissions which give rise
`to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Santa Clara County.
`PARTIES
`15. Plaintiff County of Santa Clara is a charter
`county organized and existing under the laws of the
`State of California. With an estimated population of
`more than 1.9 million people, Santa Clara County is the
`largest county in the Bay Area and the sixth largest
`county in California. As a county of immigrants, the
`County has especially benefited from DACA and is es-
`pecially harmed by the program’s rescission. Thirty-
`eight percent of Santa Clara County residents are for-
`eign born, and approximately sixty percent of children
`in the county have at least one parent who is foreign
`born. Santa Clara County has the highest percentage
`of foreign-born residents of all counties in California.
`More than half of county residents speak a language
`other than English at home, and more than 100 lan-
`guages and dialects are spoken within the county.
`
`
`
`
`
`384
`
`
`
`16. The County is the level of government tasked
`with provision of core safety-net services to this di-
`verse community; it employs a workforce of more than
`18,000, and must ensure that this workforce possesses
`the skills necessary to effectively serve this community.
`The County employs DACA recipients in key positions
`throughout the organization, providing upward mobili-
`ty to young people who deserve the opportunity to
`serve their communities through the public sector, and
`leveraging the unique experience and skills these em-
`ployees bring to the County government.
`17. The County also operates the In-Home Sup-
`portive Services (“IHSS”) program, which provides
`in-home care in the form of assistance with activities of
`daily living, to eligible aged, blind, and disabled indi-
`viduals who would otherwise be unable to remain safely
`in their own homes. The IHSS program is funded
`through a combination of federal, state, and county
`funds, and provides services to over 22,000 IHSS bene-
`ficiaries in Santa Clara County.
`18. Plaintiff Service Employees International Un-
`ion Local 521 is a labor union that represents approxi-
`mately 40,000 public- and private-sector workers in the
`central Bay Area and California’s Central Valley, in-
`cluding more than 10,000 who are employed by the
`County of Santa Clara. Local 521 is an affiliate of the
`Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”),
`which represents 2.2 million working men and women
`around the world. A large percentage of Local 521’s
`membership is Latino and many are first-generation
`immigrants. The primary mission of Local 521 is to
`organize, represent, and empower employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`385
`
`
`
`In addition, Local 521 works in partnership
`19.
`with SEIU and other groups to combat discrimination
`and mobilize for immigration reform at the national
`level. Local 521’s efforts include its Committee on
`Comprehensive Immigration Reform, a member-based
`committee that engages in organizing, advocacy, and
`education to help undocumented workers. Local 521
`has conducted “know your rights” information sessions
`and workshops, engaged in legislative advocacy on
`immigration-related bills at the state level, held com-
`munity forums on DACA and Deferred Action for
`Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Resi-
`dents in conjunction with the California Attorney Gen-
`eral, and participated as an amicus in litigation brought
`by the County of Santa Clara and others challenging
`the Trump administration’s threat to cut off federal
`funding to sanctuary cities and counties. Local 521
`has members who are DACA recipients, including
`members who work for the County of Santa Clara.
`These members are able to work and, thus, to be Local
`521 members, because of the work authorization they
`obtain through the DACA program.
`20. Local 521 brings this action as an associational
`plaintiff on behalf of its members who are DACA re-
`cipients, asserting claims on behalf of those members.
`Local 521 also brings this lawsuit to protect the rights
`and interests of its members and prospective members,
`to preserve its ability to organize new members who
`are DACA recipients, and to preserve its representa-
`tional relationship with current DACA recipients.
`21. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of
`the United States. President Trump made the deci-
`sion to rescind the DACA program and is sued in his
`official capacity.
`
`
`
`
`
`386
`
`
`
`22. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions is
`the Attorney General of the United States. Attorney
`General Sessions announced the rescission of the DACA
`program and has ultimate authority over the Depart-
`ment of Justice’s prosecution of violations of immigra-
`tion laws. He is sued in his official capacity.
`23. Defendant Elaine Duke is the Acting Secre-
`tary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
`Acting Secretary Duke is responsible for managing
`DHS, and oversees the United States Citizenship and
`Immigration Service (“USCIS”) and the Immigration
`and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Her responsibil-
`ities include the administration and enforcement of pol-
`icies and practices related to DACA. She is sued in
`her official capacity.
`24. Defendant DHS is a federal agency responsi-
`ble for implementing, administering and enforcing the
`nation’s immigration laws and policies, including the
`DACA program. DHS is a Department of the Execu-
`tive Branch and is an agency within the meaning of
`5 U.S.C. § 552(f )(1).
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The DACA Program
`25. DHS announced the DACA program in 2012,
`in a memorandum issued by former DHS Secretary
`Janet Napolitano. The reasoning behind the program
`was that it made no sense to punish individuals who
`were brought to the United States as children, through
`no fault of their own, and who had proven themselves
`to be trustworthy, contributing members of their com-
`munities. DACA was also intended to generate the
`wide-reaching benefits that would accrue to recipients,
`their families and their communities, as undocumented
`
`
`
`
`
`387
`
`
`
`individuals were permitted to live and work without the
`ever-present threat of deportation.
`26. DACA allows people who were brought to the
`United States as children and who meet certain criteria
`to apply for temporary deferral of deportation (some-
`times referred to as “deferred action”) and for work
`authorization. According to USCIS, as of March 31,
`2017, approximately 800,000 young people have been
`granted deferred action under DACA in the five years
`the program has been in place. Applicants are eligible
`for deferred action status under DACA only if they:
`(i) were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012; (ii) were
`brought to the United States before their 16th birth-
`day; (iii) continuously resided in the United States
`since June 15, 2007 to the present; (iv) were physically
`present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at
`the time they made their DACA application; (v) did not
`have lawful immigration status on June 15, 2012; (vi)
`are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a
`GED, or were honorably discharged from the United
`States military or Coast Guard; and (vii) have not been
`convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three
`or more misdemeanors, and do not pose a threat to na-
`tional security or public safety.
`27. To apply for deferred action status under
`DACA, applicants are required to pay a substantial fee
`of $495, submit a detailed application, and submit to a
`background check and any other screening that DHS
`deems necessary.
`28. Pursuant to DACA, deferred action status, as
`well as work authorization, is granted for two-year per-
`iods. From the time DACA was first implemented,
`however, applicants were told that they would have the
`opportunity to apply for renewal of deferred action sta-
`
`
`
`
`
`388
`
`
`
`tus and were given detailed instructions for doing so.
`In particular, recipients were instructed that they
`should apply for renewal approximately 120 days (but
`no more than 150 days) before the expiration of their
`2-year period. Recipients were told that they would
`be eligible for renewal if they met the requirements for
`an initial DACA application and also: (i) had not de-
`parted the United States on or after June 15, 2007; (ii)
`continuously resided in the United States since sub-
`mission of their most recent DACA application; and (iii)
`had not in the interim been convicted of a disqualifying
`crime or otherwise posed a threat to national security
`or public safety. The opportunity to renew is a crucial
`aspect of the DACA program. There is little reason
`for eligible individuals to run the risk of identifying
`themselves as lacking regular immigration status for a
`temporary benefit and, similarly,