throbber
Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589
`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,

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