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.
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`On Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Ninth Circuit
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
`NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL
`FUND, INC., AND LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
`
`
`
`SHERRILYN A. IFILL
`Director-Counsel
`JANAI S. NELSON
`SAMUEL SPITAL
`NATASHA MERLE*
`RAYMOND AUDAIN
`CARA MCCLELLAN
`NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE &
`EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
`40 Rector St., 5th Floor
`New York, NY 10006
`(212) 965-2200
`nmerle@naacpldf.org
`
`*Counsel of Record
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DANIEL HARAWA
`Of Counsel
`NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE &
`EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
`700 14th St, NW Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`NAACP Legal Defense &
`Educational Fund, Inc
`
`October 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`i(cid:3)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(cid:3)
`
`PAGE
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii
`INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................1
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................3
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................7
`I. Respondents’
`Intentional
`Racial
`Discrimination Claim is Cognizable. ...................7
`(cid:3)(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Respondents’ Equal Protection Claim
`Challenges a General Policy Decision,
`Which Should be Reviewed Under the
`Arlington Heights Framework. ......................9
`B.(cid:3) Respondents’ Claim of Intentional
`Racial Discrimination Meets
`the
`“Outrageous” Requirement of AADC. ..........13
`II. The Lower Courts Correctly Concluded
`that Respondents Plausibly Alleged an
`Equal Protection Claim Under Arlington
`Heights. ............................................................... 17
`A.(cid:3) The Factors Supporting an Inference of
`Discrimination. ............................................. 18
`B.(cid:3) The Government Cannot Rely on Ipse
`to Defeat an Inference of
`Dixit
`Discrimination. ............................................ 23
`
`

`

`ii(cid:3)
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 31
`(cid:3)
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`iii(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ....................4
`Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen,
`291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .......... passim
`Bolling v. Sharpe,
`347 U.S. 497 (1955) .............................................. 14
`Brown v. Board of Education,
`347 U.S. 483 (1954) ................................................1
`Buck v. Davis,
`137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) ..............................................1
`CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump,
`355 F. Supp. 3d 307 (D. Md. 2018) ...................... 21
`
`CASA de Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec.,
`284 F. Supp. 3d 758 (D. Md. 2018) ...................... 12
`
`Centro Presente v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
`Sec.,
`332 F. Supp. 3d 393 (D. Mass. 2018) .................. 21
`Chae Chan Ping v. United States,
`130 U.S. 581 (1889) .............................................. 16
`City of Greenwood v. Peacock,
`384 U.S. 808 (1966) .............................................. 14
`
`

`

`iv(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
`488 U.S. 469 (1989) ................................................8
`Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) .................................... 29, 30
`
`Dep’t of Homeland Security v. Regents of the
`Univ. of Calif.
`(2019) (Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589) .............5
`Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89 (2007) ................................................ 27
`Humphrey’s Executor v. United States,
`295 U.S. 602 (1935) .............................................. 26
`Korematsu v. United States
`323 U.S. 214 (1944) ................................................8
`McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky.,
`545 U.S. 844 (2005) .............................................. 27
`Miller-El v. Dretke,
`545 U.S. 231 ......................................................... 15
`
`Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored
`People v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
`364 F. Supp. 3d 568 (D. Md. 2019) ...................... 21
`
`

`

`v(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Nino v. Johhnson,
`No. 16-CV-2876, 2016 WL 6995563
`(N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2016) ....................................... 17
`U.S. ex rel Parco v. Morris,
`426 F. Supp. 976 (E.D. Pa 1977) ......................... 11
`Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado,
`137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) ..............................................1
`Plessy v. Ferguson,
`163 U.S. 537 (1896) .......................................... 1, 15
`Ragbir v. Homan,
`923 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................... 16
`Rajah v. Mukasey,
`544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................. 13
`Ramos v. Nielsen,
`336 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2018)................ 21
`
`Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec.,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018)..................4
`
`Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec.,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (N.D. Cal. 2018)........ passim
`
`

`

`vi(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec.,
`908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................ passim
`
`Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
`Committee,
`525 U.S. 471, 488-91 (1999) ....................... 9, 10, 13
`Rose v. Mitchell,
`443 U.S. 545 (1979) .......................................... 8, 14
`Saget v. Trump,
`345 F. Supp. 3d 287 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .................. 21
`Saget v. Trump,
`375 F. Supp. 3d 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ............ 22, 26
`Texas v. United States,
`96 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809
`F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d, 136 S. Ct.
`2271 (2016) ........................................................... 28
`Trump v. NAACP,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.D.C. 2018) ........................4
`United States v. Armstrong,
`517 U.S. 456 (1996) .............................................. 13
`
`

`

`vii(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`United States v. Locke,
`471 U.S. 84 (1985) ..................................................5
`
`Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous.
`Dev. Corp.,
`429 U.S. 252 (1977) .............................................. 18
`Washington v. Davis,
`426 U.S. 229 (1976) .............................................. 24
`Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
`118 U.S. 356 (1886) ................................................8
`STATUTES
`Act of July 14, 1870, ch. 254, §7, 16 Stat.
`254. ....................................................................... 15
`Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103. ............. 15
`Act of May 6, 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act),
`ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58. ............................................. 16
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §
`551 et seq. ..............................................................4
`Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, § 3, 39
`Stat. 874. .............................................................. 16
`
`

`

`viii(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`STATUTES
`Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, § 11(a),
`43 Stat. 153. ......................................................... 19
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`A. Warner Parker, The Quota Provisions of
`the Immigration Act of 1924, 18 AM. J.
`INT’L L. 737 (1924).............................................. 19
`Bianca Quilantan & David Cohen, Trump
`tells Dem congresswomen: Go back
`where you came from, POLITICO (July
`14, 2019),
`https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/1
`4/trump-congress-go-back-where-they-
`came-from-1415692. ............................................ 20
`Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal
`Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. In
`Support of Petitioners, Jean v. Nelson,
`472 U.S. 846 (1985) (No.84-5240), 1985
`WL 670075. ............................................................2
`
`

`

`ix(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Christopher Flavelle, Lisa Friedman, and
`Peter Baker, Commerce Chief
`Threatened Firings at NOAA after
`Trump’s Dorian Tweets, Sources Say,
`NY Times,
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/cli
`mate/hurricane-dorian-trump-
`tweet.html (last updated Sept. 10, 2019) ............ 27
`David Sherfinski, Donald Trump: Protesters
`outside rally ‘thugs who were flying the
`Mexican flag,’ Wash. Times (May 25,
`2016) ..................................................................... 19
`Def.’s Suppl. Submission and Further Resp.
`to Pl.’s Post-Briefing Notices, James
`Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice, No.
`1:17-cv-00144-APM, (D.D.C. Nov. 13,
`2017) .................................................................... 25
`Elizabeth Landers, White House: Trump’s
`Tweets are ‘Official Statements’, CNN
`(June 6, 2017),
`https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/
`trump-tweets-official-
`statements/index.html. ........................................ 25
`
`

`

`x(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Josh Dawsey, Trump derides protections for
`immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries,
`Wash. Post (Jan. 12, 2018),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics
`/trump-attacks-protections-for-
`immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-
`oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-
`f711-11e7-91af-
`31ac729add94_story.html?utm_term=.b
`56f11cc896f. .......................................................... 20
`Jugal K. Patel, Trump Wants Big Changes
`to Legal Immigration, Too — How Big?,
`NY Times (Oct. 18, 2016),
`https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20
`16/10/18/us/politics/trump-legal-
`immigration.html. ................................................ 19
`Karen Tumulty, President Trump isn’t a
`fan of dissent—inside or outside the
`government, Wash. Post (Feb. 1, 2017),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics
`/president-trump-seeks-to-quash-
`dissent-inside-the-
`government/2017/02/01/788bdefa-e7ed-
`11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html ................... 27
`
`

`

`xi(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Madeline Joung, What Is Happening at
`Migrant Detention Centers? Here’s What
`to Know, TIME,
`https://time.com/5623148/migrant-
`detention-centers-conditions/ (last
`updated July 12, 2019). ....................................... 22
` Mallory Shelbourne, Trump to Congress:
`‘Get ready to do your job” on DACA, The
`Hill (Sept. 5, 2017),
`https://thehill.com/homenews/administr
`ation/349173-trump-to-congress-get-
`ready-to-do-your-job-on-daca. .............................. 26
`Memorandum For Federal Prosecutors
`Along the Southwest Border from the
`Att’y Gen. Sessions to Fed. Prosecutors
`Along the Sw. Border (Apr. 6, 2018)
`(https://perma.cc/H5JB-LFG9) ............................ 23
`Memorandum from Att’y Gen. Sessions to
`Acting DHS Sec’y Duke (Sept. 5, 2017)
`(https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/p
`ublications/17_0904_DOJ_AG-letter-
`DACA.pdf) ........................................................ 4, 26
`
`

`

`xii(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Sec’y
`of Homeland Sec. to David V. Aguilar et
`al. (June 15, 2012)
`https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/p
`ublications/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-
`discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-
`as-children.pdf .......................................................3
`Michael Shear, Stoking Fears, Trump
`Defied Bureaucracy to Advance
`Immigration Agenda, NY Times (Dec.
`23, 2017),
`https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/
`politics/trump-immigration.html. ....................... 20
`Sophie Tatum, Trump: I’ll ‘revisit’ DACA if
`Congress can’t fix in 6 months, CNN,
`https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/
`donald-trump-revisit-daca/index.html
`(last updated Sept. 6, 2017). ................................ 26
`Stephen Collinson, The law or the
`President: The Trump appointees’
`dilemma, CNN (Apr. 9, 2019),
`https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/
`donald-trump-kirstjen-nielsen-
`immigration/index.html. ...................................... 27
`
`

`

`xiii(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Pub. Affairs,
`Attorney General Sessions Delivers
`Remarks on DACA (Sept. 5, 2017),
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attor
`ney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-
`daca. ..................................................................... 28
`Z. Byron Wolf, The kiss of death in Trump’s
`cabinet is disagreeing with the boss,
`CNN,
`https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/
`trump-cabinet-kiss-of-death/index.html
`(last updated Apr. 3, 2018) .................................. 27
`Z. Byron Wolf, Trump’s attacks on Judge
`Curiel are still jarring to read, CNN
`(Feb. 27, 2017),
`https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/
`judge-curiel-trump-border-
`wall/index.html .................................................... 19
`
`

`

`xiv(cid:3)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Zack Budryk, Trump’s renewed push for
`family separations led to Nielsen’s
`ouster: report, The Hill (Apr. 8, 2019),
`https://thehill.com/latino/437830-trump-
`has-pushed-to-resume-child-separations-
`for-months-report................................................. 26
`
`
`

`

`(cid:3)
`
`INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE1
`Amicus NAACP Legal Defense and
`Educational Fund, Inc. (“LDF”) is a non-profit,
`non-partisan law organization established under the
`laws of New York to assist Black people and other
`people of color in the full, fair, and free exercise of
`their constitutional rights. Founded in 1940 under the
`leadership of Thurgood Marshall, LDF focuses on
`eliminating racial discrimination
`in education,
`economic
`justice, criminal
`justice, and political
`participation. For nearly eighty years, LDF has
`fought to enforce the constitutional guarantee of
`equal protection for all persons. LDF represented
`Black parents and their children in Brown v. Board of
`Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the historic case that
`dismantled
`the
`“separate but equal” doctrine
`established under Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537
`(1896), which relegated Black people, by law, to a
`position inferior to white citizens. Today, LDF
`continues to work to combat discrimination and
`pernicious racial stereotyping against people of all
`backgrounds. In 2016, LDF argued Buck v. Davis, 137
`S. Ct. 759, 778 (2017), in which this Court condemned
`defense counsel’s introduction of the “toxin” of racial
`bias into Mr. Buck’s capital sentencing hearing. That
`same year, LDF also filed an amicus brief in Peña-
`Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855, 868, 870 (2017),
`(cid:3)
`1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amicus
`curiae state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in
`whole or in part and that no person other than amicus curiae, its
`members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to the
`preparation or submission of this brief. Pursuant to Supreme
`Court Rule 37.3, counsel for amicus curiae state that both
`parties have filed blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`2
`
`(cid:3)
`in which this Court recognized that a juror’s
`statements assigning pernicious racial stereotypes to
`a Mexican American defendant could,
`if
`left
`unchecked, result in the wrongful exercise of power by
`the State.
`Consistent with amicus curiae’s opposition to
`all forms of discrimination, LDF has a strong interest
`in ensuring that the federal government abides by
`fundamental equal protection principles in its policies
`related to immigrants. LDF filed an amicus brief in
`Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), explaining that
`the Court of Appeals had misapplied this Court’s
`precedent in concluding that a federal immigration
`policy tainted by racial discrimination was not subject
`to judicial review.2 Most recently, in January 2018,
`LDF filed NAACP v. United States Department of
`Homeland Security, on behalf of organizational
`plaintiffs challenging on equal protection grounds the
`Department of Homeland Security’s decision to
`rescind Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for
`Haitians in the United States. No. 1:18-cv-00239-
`DKC (D. Md. Jan. 24, 2018).
`Amicus LatinoJustice PRLDEF, founded in
`1972 as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education
`Fund, is a national not-for-profit civil rights legal
`defense fund that has advocated for and defended the
`constitutional rights and the equal protection of all
`Latinos under the law. LatinoJustice champions an
`equitable society through advancing Latinx civil
`engagement, cultivating leadership, and protecting
`civil rights and equality in the areas of criminal
`(cid:3)
`2 See Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense and
`Educational Fund, Inc. In Support of Petitioners, Jean v. Nelson,
`472 U.S. 846 (1985) (No.84-5240), 1985 WL 670075 at *4.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`3
`
`(cid:3)
`fair
`employment,
`education,
`justice,
`rights,
`rights,
`language
`housing, immigrants’
`redistricting and voting
`rights. LatinoJustice
`vehemently opposes the Petitioner’s unlawful actions
`to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
`(“DACA”) program, which has provided deferred
`status
`for thousands of Latinx students and
`DREAMers across the country. Thus, LDF and
`LatinoJustice have the experience and expertise to
`assist the Court in its review of this important case.
`INTRODUCTION AND
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland
`Security
`(“DHS”) Janet Napolitano
`issued a
`memorandum establishing the DACA program.3
`Under DACA, individuals who were brought to the
`United States as children and meet specific criteria
`may request deferred action for a period of two years,
`subject to renewal. DACA designees must undergo
`rigorous screening, including biometric screening and
`criminal background checks, in order to be eligible for
`the program. In establishing DACA, DHS recognized
`that there are “certain young people who were
`brought to this country as children and know only this
`country as home[,]” and that federal immigration
`laws are not “designed to remove productive young
`people to countries where they may not have lived or
`even speak the language.” DACA Memo. at 1-2. The
`
`(cid:3)
`3 Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Sec’y of Homeland Sec.
`to David V. Aguilar et al. (June 15, 2012)
`https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/s1-
`exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-
`as-children.pdf [hereinafter DACA Memo].
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`4
`
`(cid:3)
`program has allowed nearly 700,000 young people,
`mostly Latinos and persons of Mexican heritage, to
`come out of the shadows, study and work without fear
`of removal.
`On September 5, 2017, DHS abruptly
`rescinded DACA by announcing that it would cease to
`accept new applications. It also announced it would
`only issue renewals for grantees whose deferrals
`expire before March 5, 2018, and only if they applied
`for
`renewal within
`one month
`of DHS’s
`announcement.4 Respondents
`challenged
`the
`rescission of DACA under the Administrative
`Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and on
`constitutional grounds. The district courts for the
`Northern District of California and Eastern District
`of New York denied in relevant part the Government’s
`motion
`to dismiss Respondents’ APA
`and
`constitutional claims, and those courts granted
`Respondents’ motions for a preliminary injunction
`based on their APA claims.5 In addition, the District
`of Columbia district court denied in relevant part the
`Government’s motion for summary judgment and
`vacated the rescission of DACA.6
`
`(cid:3)
`4 See Memorandum from Att’y Gen. Sessions to Acting DHS
`Sec’y Duke (Sept. 5, 2017)
`(https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0904_D
`OJ_AG-letter-DACA.pdf) [hereinafter DACA Rescission Memo].
`5 See Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (N.D. Cal. 2018); Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen,
`291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Regents of Univ. of Calif. v.
`U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal.
`2018); Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, 279 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y.
`2018).
`6 See Trump v. NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.D.C. 2018).(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`5
`
`Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
`California district court’s decision on the motion to
`dismiss and the preliminary injunction on APA
`grounds. Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018). In a
`concurrence, Judge Owens explained that he would
`have held the APA claim to be not judicially
`reviewable, but that he would have remanded for
`consideration of whether the Plaintiffs’ equal
`protection claim would support a preliminary
`injunction, noting
`that
`the
`claim appeared
`“promising” based on the Plaintiffs’ allegations. Id. at
`523-24 (Owens, J., concurring).
`This Court granted certiorari on the questions
`of: (1) whether the DHS’s decision to terminate DACA
`is judicially reviewable; and if so (2) whether the
`decision to terminate DACA is lawful. Dep’t of
`Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif.
`(2019) (Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589).
`For the reasons stated by Respondents, the
`district
`courts
`correctly granted preliminary
`injunctions under the APA. Because those injunctions
`are supported by statutory grounds, this Court need
`not reach Respondents’ constitutional claims. See,
`e.g., United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 92 (1985).
`Nevertheless, because the Government has sought to
`limit judicial review of its racially discriminatory
`treatment of non-citizen U.S. residents, a response
`from amici is in order.
`The Government contends this case involves a
`“discriminatory-enforcement claim,” which it claims
`is “not cognizable in the immigration context.” Pet’rs’
`Aug. 19, 2019 Br. at 53 [hereinafter Pet’rs’ Br.]. Thus,
`according to the Government, the Administration’s
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`6
`
`(cid:3)
`decision to rescind a program that protects from
`removal 700,000 persons brought to the United States
`as children is not subject to judicial scrutiny even if
`the rescission was motivated by racial animus. That
`is a breathtaking argument. It would mean the
`Article III courts could not review DACA’s rescission
`even if the Administration formally stated that the
`rescission was motivated by a desire to remove as
`many Latinos as possible from our country. Nor could
`the courts review an official federal policy to deport
`only non-citizens of color.
`That is not, and cannot be, the law. The Fifth
`Amendment protects all persons living in the United
`States. If the equal protection component of that
`Amendment means anything, it means that racial
`discrimination must not
`infect
`federal policy
`judgments about whether to deport hundreds of
`thousands of individuals who came to the United
`States as children. And, as LDF pointed out over 30
`years ago in Jean, and as this Court has recognized in
`other contexts, the harms from state-sponsored racial
`discrimination “extend[] beyond the direct victims” of
`the discrimination.7 Such discrimination “corrupt[s]
`our governmental
`institutions, stigmatize[s] all
`members of the disfavored group and incite[s] further
`discrimination.” Id. If unchecked by the courts, such
`discrimination will also undermine public confidence
`in the courts as neutral arbiters of the rule of law.
`The Government insists that, even if this claim
`is reviewable, Respondents have not stated an equal
`protection claim. In the Government’s view, this
`Court should ignore the facts that over ninety percent
`(cid:3)
`7 See Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense and
`Educational Fund, Inc., supra note 2, at *9.(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`7
`
`(cid:3)
`of DACA’s beneficiaries are Latino—the vast majority
`of whom are of Mexican heritage—and that the
`President has repeatedly made statements evincing
`his animus against Mexican and Latino immigrants.
`But this Court’s precedent does not authorize the
`Government to disregard facts because they are
`detrimental. Instead, the President’s alarming
`statements
`evincing
`animus
`against Latino
`immigrants and other immigrants of color; the
`influence he exerts over the members in his cabinet;
`the fact that the vast majority of DACA’s beneficiaries
`are Latino; and the unusual procedures employed by
`the Administration in rescinding DACA, all support
`an inference that the Administration’s rescission of
`DACA was motivated, at least in part, by racial
`discrimination. Therefore, to the degree this Court
`reaches
`the
`issue,
`it should recognize
`that
`Respondents’ equal protection claims are “promising,”
`as Judge Owens recognized. They are certainly
`plausible claims, the assertion of which was sufficient
`to defeat the Government’s motion to dismiss.
`ARGUMENT
`I.(cid:3) Respondents’
`Intentional
`Discrimination Claim is Cognizable.
`The United States has taken the position that
`Respondents’ equal protection challenge to the
`rescission of DACA is “not cognizable.”8 In essence,
`the Government argues that the Administration’s
`policy change, the impact of which falls almost
`completely on Latinos and individuals of Mexican
`heritage, cannot be reviewed by the judiciary for
`(cid:3)
`
`Racial
`
`8 Pet’rs’ Br. at 53.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`8
`
`(cid:3)
`discriminatory intent. That argument runs contrary
`to our most fundamental constitutional principles and
`to the rule of law itself. No principle is more sacred to
`our democracy than the prohibition on racial
`discrimination in federal government policy. See City
`of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469, 501
`(1989) (citation omitted). The courts are tasked with
`ensuring that state-sponsored discriminatory policies
`are not allowed to stand.
`The Government attempts to create a category
`of cases that would be immune from equal protection
`review by courts: challenges to immigration policies.
`This has never been true. It is well established that
`equal protection “provisions are universal in their
`application, to all persons within the territorial
`jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race,
`of color, or of nationality.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118
`U.S. 356, 369 (1886). The country’s extensive history
`of racial classifications suggests
`that
`judicial
`deference to executive policies is not compatible with
`the constitutional promise of equal protection. See
`Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214, 235-40
`(1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting).
`Though the executive has broad discretion in
`implementing immigration policy, that discretion is
`not so broad to allow the executive to engage in that
`which is “odious in all aspects,” Rose v. Mitchell, 443
`U.S. 545, 555 (1979), i.e., government-sponsored
`racial discrimination.
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`9
`
`A. Respondents’ Equal Protection Claim
`Challenges a General Policy Decision,
`Which Should Be Reviewed Under the
`Arlington Heights Framework.
`The Government argues that Respondents’
`equal protection challenge is, in actuality, a selective-
`prosecution claim, and the race discrimination
`alleged by Respondents
`is not
`sufficiently
`“outrageous” to warrant review under the selective-
`prosecution standard. See Pet’rs’ Br. at 54. As each
`lower court to address the issue found, this argument
`is without merit. First, Respondents do not raise a
`selective-enforcement claim subject to a higher
`pleading standard, but instead raise an equal
`protection challenge
`to
`the executive’s policy
`judgment about how
`to apply
`the nation’s
`immigration laws, which should be analyzed under
`the Arlington Heights framework.(cid:3)Second, even if this
`were
`a
`selective-prosecution
`challenge,
`discrimination on the basis of race is the epitome of
`“outrageous” government conduct that presents a
`judicially cognizable claim.
`The Government’s argument relies on Reno v.
`American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, in
`which this Court stated that selective-enforcement
`claims are rarely viable in the deportation context.
`525 U.S. 471, 488–91 (1999) [hereinafter AADC]. In
`that case, non-citizens claimed that, although they
`had violated the immigration laws, the Government
`had impermissibly targeted and chosen them for
`deportation because of their affiliation with an
`alleged terrorist group. The Court rejected their
`claims, noting that selective-enforcement defenses to
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`10
`
`(cid:3)
`deportation proceedings are ill-suited for judicial
`review. See id. at 490–91.
`the DACA
`to
`Respondents’
`challenge
`rescission, however, is not raised “as a defense
`against [ ] deportation” and is not a claim of “selective
`enforcement.” Id. Further, as Respondents note, some
`of the plaintiffs in this case are states, and their
`claims plainly do not implicate selective enforcement
`principles. Br. of New York, et al. at 56. Therefore,
`the necessary predicate for the application of AADC’s
`heightened standard is not applicable, and its
`concerns about “invad[ing] a special province of the
`Executive” do not apply. Id. at 489.
`Respondent’s equal protection allegation is a
`freestanding
`claim
`that
`the Administration,
`motivated by race discrimination, made a sweeping
`policy decision
`to rescind protections
`to all
`approximately 700,000 immigrants brought here as
`children. It is not a challenge to a case-by-case
`decision made by DHS as to which immigrants should
`have their cases prosecuted and which should not, but
`a challenge that the Government has made a
`fundamental policy judgment about how to apply our
`nation’s immigration laws in a manner infected by
`racial discrimination. In short, the “substantial
`concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to
`examine” individual prosecutorial decisions do not
`obtain here. Id. at 490 (quoting Wayte v. United
`States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985)).
`Indeed, key factors the AADC Court identified
`as making courts hesitant to review selective-
`prosecution claims have no application when, as here,
`the challenge is to a categorical (and public)
`government policy decision as to how to apply our
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`11
`
`(cid:3)
`immigration laws. See id. (referring to the “strength
`of the case,” the “prosecution’s general deterrence
`value,” potentially “revealing the Government’s
`enforcement policy,” and the risk of chilling law
`enforcement by subjecting a prosecutor’s motives to
`outside inquiry, as reasons why courts should be
`hesitant in reviewing selective-enforcement claims).
`The Government’s argument that this is a case
`of prosecutorial “discretion” fails on the plain
`meaning of that word. Under the DACA policy
`“‘discretion’ was exercised favorably in all cases of a
`certain kind and then, after repeal of the regulation,
`unfavorably in each such case.” U.S. ex rel Parco v.
`Morris, 426 F. Supp. 976, 984 (E.D. Pa 1977). This is
`not discretion; it is a policy concerning a category of
`people. The DACA rescission may eventually lead to
`the prosecution and removal of undocumented
`immigrants, who may challenge the decision to
`prosecute their case in lieu of others, but that day is
`not today. Today, Respondents are challenging
`whether the Administration’s categorical decision to
`end a nationwide
`immigration program was
`motivated by race discrimination.
`The Government also makes the half-hearted
`suggestion
`that
`judicial
`review
`of
`the
`Administration’s discriminatory rescission of DACA
`would “‘[impact] foreign relations.’” Pet’rs’ Br. at 54
`(citation omitted). But the Government has never
`explained what
`“foreign relations”
`interest
`is
`implicated by judicial review of Respondents’ claim
`that the rescission of DACA was motivated by racial
`discrimination.
`In
`rescinding DACA,
`the
`Administration made no mention of foreign relations
`as a basis for its decision. Notably, this case does not
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`12
`
`(cid:3)
`involve decisions about foreign nationals entering the
`United States; indeed, the only beneficiaries of DACA
`are longstanding residents of this country who have a
`Fifth Amendment right not to be subject to racial
`discrimination by the federal government.
`Each
`lower court correctly rejected the
`Government’s attempt to import AADC’s heightened
`selective prosecution standard
`to
`the DACA
`rescission.9 As one court explained, “Plaintiffs’ claims
`cannot
`fairly be
`characterized as
`selective-
`prosecution claims because they do not ‘implicate the
`Attorney General’s p

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