State Of New York et al v. Donald Trump et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT State of New York, et al. against All Defendants filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0207-9807840 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by State of North Carolina, State of Hawaii, State of Massachussetts, State Of New York, State of Virginia, State of Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, State of Washington, State of Iowa, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Illinois, State of Connecticut, State of New Mexico, State of Delaware. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Appendix, #3 Proposed Summons Elaine C. Duke, #4 Proposed Summons DHS HQ, #5 Proposed Summons Donald Trump, #6 Proposed Summons ICE, #7 Proposed Summons USCIS HQ, #8 Proposed Summons USCIS NYC, #9 Proposed Summons USA (DOJ)) (Rosado, Lourdes)

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STATES OF NEW YORK,
MASSACHUSETTS,
WASHINGTON, CONNECTICUT,
DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS,
IOWA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH
CAROLINA, OREGON,
PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND,
VERMONT, and VIRGINIA,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-cv-5228

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ELAINE
C. DUKE, in her official capacity; U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
and the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
1.

INTRODUCTION
The States of New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware,

District Of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia (the “States”) bring this action to protect the States—
including their residents, employers, regulatory systems, and educational institutions—against the
illegal actions of the President and the federal government. On September 5, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Memorandum (the “DHS Memorandum”)
ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), a program that has protected from
deportation approximately 800,000 young people who grew up in this country, most of whom have
1

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 2

known no home other than the United States. Pursuant to the DHS Memorandum, the federal
government will only issue renewals for grantees whose terms expire before March 5, 2018,
provided they apply for renewal by October 5, 2018. DHS will immediately cease accepting new
applications under DACA.
2.

Since 2012, DACA has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people to live,

study, and work in the United States, and to become stable and even more productive members of
their communities, without fear that they could be arrested and placed in deportation proceedings
at any moment. Throughout the country, DACA grantees are employed by various companies and
State and municipal agencies, which benefit from their skills and productivity. DACA grantees
also contribute significantly to State and local revenues and tax bases. DACA recipients will also
lose their eligibility for public and employer-based health insurance programs that reduce the
States’ health expenditures and promote public health. They also will lose their right to enroll in
higher education institutions with in-state admissions preferences and tuition; thus, public
universities will be deprived of a means by which they enrich the experience of all students and
faculty through diversity and new perspectives.
3.

More than 78 percent of DACA grantees are of Mexican origin, See Ex. 1 (USCIS,

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Fiscal Years 2012-2017, June 8, 2017),
which is more than double the percentage of people of Mexican origin that comprise of the overall
foreign-born population (29 percent) of the United States. See Ex. 2 (U.S. Census Bureau, The
Foreign-Born Population in the United States).
4.

Ending DACA, whose participants are mostly of Mexican origin, is a culmination

of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments—whether personally held, stated to appease some
portion of his constituency, or some combination thereof—to punish and disparage people with

2

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 3

Mexican roots. The consequence of the President’s animus-driven decision is that approximately
800,000 persons who have availed themselves of the program will ultimately lose its protections,
and will be exposed to removal when their authorizations expire and they cannot seek renewal.
The individuals who have relied on DACA are now more vulnerable to removal than before the
program was initiated, as they turned over sensitive information to the federal government in their
applications. Despite the federal government’s repeated promises that it would not use such
information to conduct enforcement measures, the DHS Memorandum does not explain how the
government will keep that information secure, nor does it provide any assurances that immigration
enforcement agents will not use such information to find and remove those who applied for DACA.
5.

Rescinding DACA will cause harm to hundreds of thousands of the States’

residents, injure State-run colleges and universities, upset the States’ workplaces, damage the
States’ economies, hurt State-based companies, and disrupt the States’ statutory and regulatory
interests. The States respectfully request that this Court invalidate the portions of the DHS
Memorandum challenged here. Further, the States ask that the Court enjoin the federal government
from using data gathered for the DACA program in immigration enforcement.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201(a).

7.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1391(e)(1).

Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities. The State of
New York is a resident of this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to this Complaint occurred within the Eastern District of New York.
8.

The States bring this action to redress harms to their proprietary interests and their

interests as parens patriae.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW YORK
3

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 4

9.

The State of New York, represented by and through its Attorney General, Eric T.

Schneiderman, is a sovereign state of the United States of America.
10.

The Governor is the chief executive officer of the State of New York. The Governor

is responsible for overseeing the operations of the State of New York and ensuring that its laws
are faithfully executed.
11.

New York is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and has standing to bring this action

because of the injuries caused by Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including irreparable injuries
to its proprietary, sovereign, and quasi-sovereign interests.
12.

The Attorney General is empowered to advance New York’s strong and important

public policy against unlawful discrimination. New York’s Constitution guarantees all persons the
right to equal treatment under the law and forbids discrimination based on race, color, creed or
religion. N.Y. Const. art. I, § 11. And New York’s statutes reiterate the State’s strong interest in
combatting discrimination and prejudice. N.Y. Exec. Law § 290.
13.

According to the latest American Community Survey, New York is home to more

than 4.4 million foreign-born residents, including an estimated 76,000 or more DACA-eligible
residents. See Ex. 3 ¶ 7(c) (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and Hill). According to the United States Citizen
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), 41,970 initial DACA applications and 53,693 renewal
applications from New York have been approved through the first quarter of 2017. New York was
the third largest source of DACA applications and approvals in the United States.
14.

New York State has an interest in protecting the economic health and welfare of its

residents. More than 91% of DACA grantees are employed. See Ex. 5 ¶ 11 (Decl. Wong). They
work for some of the largest companies in New York and for small and family-owned business
that have a significant impact on local economies in New York. Ex. 5 ¶¶ 21, 36(b) (Decl. Wong).
And they provide vital services to New Yorkers in important fields such as healthcare, education,
law, and social services. See Ex. 6 ¶ 13 (Decl. C.A.); Ex. 11 ¶ 8 (Decl. TFA); Ex 52 MOIA ¶ 8
(Decl. MOIA).

4

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 5

15.

Rescinding DACA will result in disruptions in each of these fields, as companies

and non-profits will be forced to terminate qualified and trained employees who have lost
employment authorization. One expert estimates that rescinding the DACA program will cost New
York State $38.6 billion dollars over the next ten years. See Ex. 4, Table 1 (Decl. Brannon).
16.

New York State also has a proprietary interest in maintaining a qualified workforce.

Both New York State and municipalities across New York have hired DACA grantees to work in
government agencies and institutions because of their specialized skills and qualifications. See Ex.
52 ¶ 8 (Decl. MOIA); Ex. 11 ¶ 8 (Decl. TFA). These agencies and institutions have invested
significant amounts of time and money to hire and train these DACA grantees. Accordingly, the
agencies and institutions will be adversely affected by DACA’s termination as they will lose the
value of their investments as well as the services of qualified and trained employees. See Ex. 52 ¶
8 (Decl. MOIA); Ex. 11 ¶ 8 (Decl. TFA).
17.

Rescinding the DACA program will decrease New York State’s tax revenues.

Through work authorization, DACA grantees more effectively avoid underemployment than their
undocumented peers and are able obtain higher wages. See Ex. 3 ¶ 4(b) (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and
Hill). Higher incomes result in higher tax revenues in New York State. In addition, DACA grantees
have increased purchasing power, and report buying cars and homes at significant rates. See Ex. 5
¶ 16 (Decl. Wong). These types of expensive purchases contribute to New York State’s tax
revenues in the form of sales and property taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy (“ITEP”), DACA-eligible individuals in New York currently contribute $140
million annually in state and local taxes. However, the loss in employment that would result from
rescinding DACA would decrease contributions from this population by between $55 million and
$84 million annually. See Ex. 3 ¶ 7(c) (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and Hill).
18.

The DACA program has encouraged thousands of grantees to pursue higher

education they would not otherwise have sought. See Ex. 5 ¶¶ 18-21 (Decl. Wong). Rescinding
DACA will adversely impact current DACA grantees enrolled in colleges and universities who
will be unable to plan for the future, apply for and obtain internships, study abroad, simultaneously
5

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 6

work to pay costs and fees, and obtain certain financial aid and scholarships. See Ex. 12 ¶¶ 7-8
(Decl. Milliken). Students subject to these conditions may choose to withdraw from their college
or university.
19.

New York State’s public colleges and universities also will be harmed if DACA is

rescinded. Both the State University of New York (“SUNY”) and the City University of New York
(“CUNY”) have encouraged DACA grantees to apply as part of their strong commitment to
diversity, equity, and inclusion. See Ex. 12 ¶ 10 (Decl. Milliken, CUNY Chancellor), and Ex. 99
(Decl. Johnson, SUNY Chancellor). At CUNY, hundreds of DACA grantees have enrolled in the
university, many with the benefit of full scholarships.
20.

Rescinding DACA will cause many high-achieving students to drop out. As a

result, New York’s public universities will lose the diversity and enrichment this population brings
to the school community. Moreover, the public universities will lose the resources they have spent
on educating students who ultimately do not graduate. See Ex. 12 ¶ 8 (Decl. Milliken).
21.

New York State has an interest in protecting the health of its residents. Rescinding

DACA will harm that interest by increasing the number of uninsured adults in New York and
forcing many to avoid medical care unless and until an emergency arises. With the benefit of work
authorization, more than 50% of DACA grantees obtain employer-provided health insurance. See
Ex. 5 ¶ 12 (Decl. Wong). Without DACA, these individuals will be unable to obtain health
insurance from employers.
22.

In addition, rescinding DACA may prevent access to Medicaid for current DACA

grantees. New York State currently funds Medicaid coverage for low-income undocumented
immigrants who have received deferred action, including DACA-eligible immigrants. See Ex. 77
(Office of Health Insurance Program, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
(CHIPRA); Expanded Coverage for Certain Qualified and PRUCOL Aliens, May 7, 2013). In
contrast, undocumented immigrants without deferred action in New York only have access to
limited emergency Medicaid funds. Rescinding DACA will require New York to either alter its

6

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 7

regulatory scheme to fund Medicaid for formerly DACA-eligible immigrants or allow this
population to go uninsured and rely on state healthcare funding only in the event of emergencies.
23.

New York State’s quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the welfare of its residents

includes its interest in protecting family rights. Most DACA grantees live in households with
American citizen family members. One expert survey estimates that 73% of DACA grantees live
with a citizen sibling, spouse or child. See Ex. 5 ¶ 23 (Decl. Wong).
24.

Rescinding deferred action will lead to increased uncertainty in these mixed-status

families, and it will increase the likelihood of splitting DACA grantees from their citizen family
members. Moreover, rescission of work authorization of DACA grantees will threaten the financial
and housing security of some of these families, especially where the DACA grantee provides
financial help to his or her family. See Ex. 5 ¶ 16 (Decl. Wong). New York’s interest in protecting
the rights of families would clearly be harmed by any decision to rescind deferred action or
employment authorization for DACA grantees in New York, thereby subjecting their families to
potential separation, financial instability, and housing insecurity.
25.

Many DACA grantees also have families overseas, including parents and siblings.

DACA permitted grantees to visit family members for the first time in years, through advance
parole.
26.

Rescinding DACA would prevent current grantees in New York from visiting their

families abroad.
PLAINTIFF COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
27.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, represented by and through its Attorney

General, is a sovereign state of the United States of America. Massachusetts is aggrieved and has
standing to bring this action because of the injuries to the state caused by Defendants’ rescission
of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and
proprietary interests.

7

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 8

28.

Massachusetts is home to more than one million immigrants, including an estimated

19,000 or more DACA-eligible residents. [1] See Ex. 3 ¶ 7 (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and Hill).
29.

Massachusetts also is home to many of the world’s leading universities and

businesses. These institutions rely heavily on immigrants, who bring tremendous talent,
knowledge, and expertise to academic communities and to the labor force. Many of these
immigrants are DACA grantees.
30.

As of March 31, 2017, USCIS had approved 7,934 initial DACA applications and

10,854 renewals for residents of Massachusetts. See Ex. 1 (USCIS Data); Ex. 5 ¶ 31 (Decl. Wong).
The DACA program has allowed these individuals, many of whom are long-term residents of
Massachusetts, to work legally, acquire driver’s licenses, open bank accounts, access lines of
credit, purchase homes and cars, receive in-state tuition at public universities, and obtain
employer-based health insurance, among other benefits.
31.

An estimated 7,252 Massachusetts DACA grantees are employed. See Ex. 5 ¶ 32

(Decl. Wong). An estimated 428 are business owners. Id. An estimated 3,562 are in school, and
2,547 are currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree or higher. Id., ¶ 33.
32.

Rescinding DACA will harm the ability of Massachusetts colleges and universities,

including public universities, to satisfy their educational missions and prepare Massachusetts
residents for the workforce. See Ex. 61 ¶¶ 5-7 (Decl. UMass).
33.

The nation’s leading private universities—many of which are located in

Massachusetts will suffer similar harms if DACA is rescinded. Harvard University, for example,
has more than 50 DACA students currently enrolled. See Ex. 96 ¶ 6 (Decl. Masden, Harvard
University). Tufts University has more than 25 DACA students. See Ex. 97 ¶ 8 (Decl. Jeka, Tufts
University.) These students often have had to overcome significant challenges in order to gain
acceptance and bring critical perspectives, insights, and experiences to their universities. See Ex.

[1]

See Migration Policy Institute, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Data Tools, available at
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca-profiles#overlaycontext=events.
8

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 9

97 ¶ 5 (Tufts Decl.); Ex. 96 ¶ 5 (Harvard Decl.). They make important and lasting contributions,
including through their classroom participation, their extracurricular engagements, and their
commitment to independent study and research. See Ex. 97 (Tufts Decl.), ¶ 5; Ex. 96 ¶¶ 7, 12
(Harvard Decl.).

Employment authorization gives these students and their universities an

assurance that they may put their talents to use in the United States job market after graduation—
something that benefits Massachusetts and the nation as a whole. See Ex. 96 (Harvard Decl.), ¶
12. DACA has allowed these students to step outside the shadow of their immigration status and
to participate fully as members of academic and campus communities in ways that likely would
not be possible otherwise. See Ex. 97 (Tufts Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. 96 (Harvard Decl.), ¶ 12. Rescinding
DACA will take important opportunities away from DACA students and reintroduce fear and
uncertainty into their lives, with significant adverse effects on these students, their universities,
and the broader community. See Ex. 97 (Tufts Decl.); Ex. 96 ¶ 13 (Harvard Decl.).
34.

DACA grantees who are Massachusetts residents receive in-state tuition at public

universities in the Commonwealth, and are eligible for a variety of scholarships. See Ex. 7 (Mass.
Dept. of Higher Education Memorandum, Residency Status for Tuition Classification Purposes –
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Nov. 21, 2012); Ex. 61 ¶ 5 (Decl. UMass). Without the
DACA program, talented young immigrants will be less likely to apply to and attend state schools
because they will not be able to afford tuition given the lack of available financial assistance and
the likelihood that they will not be able to work legally upon graduation. Those who already are
attending state schools may be forced to drop out. See, e.g., ¶ 5 Ex. 61 (University of
Massachusetts Decl.); Ex. 72 ¶ 5 (Decl. Teodoro); Ex. 69 ¶¶ 8, 10 (Decl. Mendes); Ex. 60 ¶¶ 6, 9
(Decl. Guevara Decl.).
35.

DACA students in graduate programs at public universities in the Commonwealth,

in particular, will be significantly affected because the loss of employment authorization needed
for graduate assistantship (research or teaching) will likely mean the loss of tuition waivers and
other benefits such as subsidized health, dental, and vision insurance for the students and their
families. Ex. 61 ¶ 5 (UMass Decl.).
9

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 10

36.

In addition, DACA students in both undergraduate or graduate programs, including

research and teaching programs, that require students to have employment authorization to
complete elements of the program—such as paid internships, residency training, and graduate
assistantships—will be severely impacted if DACA is rescinded. Ex. 61 ¶ 6 (UMass Decl.).
37.

Losing these talented young immigrants will deprive Massachusetts state schools

of the special contributions and perspectives they bring to campus communities, both as students
and alumni. Ex. 61 ¶ 7 (UMass Decl.). If current DACA students are forced to drop out, the
University of Massachusetts also will lose the value of the financial assistance it has granted to
and the other resources it has spent educating students who ultimately do not
graduate. Id. Rescinding DACA also will impose additional tangible costs on our state schools,
which already have begun to experience disruption as a result of uncertainty over the future of the
program and are preparing for the likelihood of increased institutional funds needed to help DACA
students meet the loss of employment. Ex. 61 ¶¶ 8-9 (UMass Decl.).
38.

Rescinding DACA will further deprive Massachusetts of the earning potential of

graduates from public universities who are most likely to stay here and join the state’s
workforce. Nine out of ten Massachusetts public higher education graduates remain in the state,
working or pursuing further education. See Ex. 93 (Mass. Dept. of Higher Education, Time to Lead,
The Need for Excellence in Public Higher Education, Sept. 2012).
39.

Rescinding DACA will cause Massachusetts to lose qualified state employees. A

number of DACA grantees work in government or at state-run institutions. See, e.g., Ex. 70 ¶ 6
(Decl. I.V.); Ex. 61 ¶ 10 (University of Massachusetts Decl.). Massachusetts has expended time
and resources to hire, train, and manage DACA grantees. If these individuals become ineligible to
work, Massachusetts will lose the value of its investment and the services of employees who
perform important functions for the state.
40.

Rescinding DACA will jeopardize the state’s licensing scheme for drivers. Under

DACA, thousands of young Massachusetts residents are able to receive social security cards and
thereby have access to driver’s licenses, which they depend on to attend heath care appointments,
10

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 11

to commute to work and school, and to attend to other necessities for themselves and their family
members. Ex. 9 (Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles, Social Security Number (SSN) Requirements);
See, e.g., Ex. 71 ¶¶ 5-7, 9 (Decl. I.T.); Ex. 69 ¶¶ 7-8 (Decl. Mendes); Ex. 70 ¶¶ 5, 8 (Decl.
I.V.). Rescinding DACA will make it impossible for these individuals to apply for new licenses
or renew the licenses they have, leading to a number of potential outcomes, including a decrease
in productivity of these residents and an increase in unlicensed drivers on the road.
41.

Rescinding DACA will harm public health and impose additional health care costs

on the state. Work authorization allows DACA recipients to access employer-sponsored health
benefits. See, e.g., Ex. 72 ¶ 4 (Decl. Teodoro); Ex. 69 ¶¶ 6, 10 (Mendes Decl.). Without these
benefits, more Massachusetts residents are likely to forgo needed health care, including preventive
care, which will create more costly health problems in the long run. It also will cause more people
to rely on state-funded and/or state-administered public health care and other benefits, and thus
impose additional costs on the state. Through its MassHealth Limited and Children’s Medical
Security Plan programs, Massachusetts offers health care benefits to residents whose immigration
status otherwise keeps them from accessing health care benefits and services. In addition,
Massachusetts’ state-administered Health Safety Net program reimburses hospitals for emergency
and urgent services provided to uninsured patients and pays community health centers for certain
preventive services, all irrespective of immigration status.
42.

Rescinding DACA will harm the general welfare of Massachusetts DACA grantees

and their families. Most DACA grantees live in households with family members who are
American citizens. One expert survey estimates that 73% of DACA grantees in Massachusetts live
with a citizen sibling, spouse, or child. See Ex. 5 (Wong Decl.), ¶ 34. Many of these families rely
on the income of DACA grantees. See, e.g., Ex. 69 ¶¶ 6, 10 (Decl. Mendes); Ex. 60 ¶ 5 (Decl.
Guevara).

Many DACA grantees also have families overseas, including parents and

siblings. DACA had made it possible for these grantees to visit family members, often for the first
time in years. See, e.g., Ex. 72 ¶ 7 (Decl. Teodoro); Ex. 70 ¶ 5 (Decl. I.V.). Rescinding DACA will
harm all of these families in profound ways.
11

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 12

43.

Rescinding DACA also will hurt the Massachusetts economy. Stripping DACA

grantees of the ability to work legally will cause many to lose their jobs, resulting, among other
things, in less tax revenue for the state. According to one estimate, DACA-eligible residents
contribute approximately $24 million annually in state and local taxes in Massachusetts—a
contribution that may drop by $9 million without DACA. See Ex. 3 ¶ 7 (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and
Hill). Another estimate suggests that ending DACA would, over a ten-year period, cost the
Massachusetts economy $258 million in lost tax revenue and $924.5 million overall. Brannon
Decl., Table 1.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON
44.

Washington is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and has standing to bring this

action because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by Defendants’ rescission of
DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and
proprietary interests.
45.

The Governor is the chief executive officer of the State of Washington. The

Governor is responsible for overseeing the operations of the State of Washington and ensuring that
its laws are faithfully executed.
46.

The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the State of Washington. The

Attorney General’s powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern.
47.

Washington has declared that practices that discriminate against any of its

inhabitants because of race, color, or national origin are matters of public concern that threaten the
rights and proper privileges of the State and harm the public welfare, health, and peace of the
people. See Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.010.
48.

Washington’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its

residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a
quasi-sovereign interest.

12

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 13

49.

Washington also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from

the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
50.

Washington’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of Washington’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
51.

As of March 2017, Washington is home to more than 17,800 DACA recipients. See

Ex. 1 (USCIS Data). Participating in the DACA program has allowed these individuals, many of
whom are long-term residents of Washington, to work legally, acquire driver’s licenses, open bank
accounts, access lines of credit, purchase homes and cars, receive in-state tuition at public
universities, and obtain employer-based health insurance, among other benefits.
52.

Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many Washington

workers are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are DACA recipients. See Ex. 5 ¶¶
12, 13 (Decl. Wong) Many companies in Washington are dependent on DACA grantees to operate
and grow their businesses. DACA recipients work for our State’s largest companies as software
engineers, finance professionals, and retail and sales associates, including for Amazon, Microsoft
and Starbucks Ex. 63 ¶¶ 4-5 (Decl. Blackwell-Hawkins, Amazon); Ex. 90 ¶¶ 7-12, 14 (Decl.
Shively, Microsoft); Ex. 8 ¶¶ 7-8 (Decl. Mutty, Starbucks).
53.

The market for highly skilled workers and employees is extremely competitive. Id.

Rescinding the work authorization of DACA recipients will inhibit Washington companies’ ability
to adequately staff their organizations, develop their workforces, and recruit talent. If recruiting
efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products
and services may be adversely affected. Id.
54.

Rescinding DACA will likewise cause Washington to lose qualified state

employees. See e.g., Ex. 56 ¶¶ 2-4 (Decl. Quinonez). Many DACA recipients work in government
or at state-run institutions. See Ex. 62 ¶ 3 (Decl. Monroe, Dept. of Ecology); Ex. 65 ¶ 3 (Decl.
Kaplan, Dept. of Social and Health Svcs.); Ex. 92 ¶ 3 (Decl. Jones, Treasury); Ex. 91 ¶ 3 (Decl.
13

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 14

Garza, Big Bend Community College); Ex. 64 ¶ 3 (Decl. Glatt, Columbia Basin College); Ex. 58
¶ 4 (Decl. Loera, Washington State University). These employees were hired because of their
specialized skills and qualifications.
55.

Washington expended time and funds to hire, train, and manage DACA recipients.

If these individuals become ineligible to work, Washington will lose the value of its investment
and the services of employees who perform important functions for the state.
56.

Rescinding DACA will harm the ability of Washington universities, including

public universities, to satisfy their educational missions and prepare Washington residents for the
workforce. According to the Washington Student Achievement Council, the state agency that
advances educational opportunities in the state, there are more than 1,400 DACA students in
Washington attending institutions of higher education. See Ex. 59 ¶ 9 (Decl. Thompson, WSAC).
57.

The University of Washington and Washington State University are the two largest

public universities in the State. More than one hundred DACA grantees attend the University of
Washington, based in Seattle. See Ex. 57 ¶ 4 (Decl. Ballinger, University of Washington). More
than 150 DACA grantees attend Washington State University, based in Pullman. See Ex. 58 ¶ 4 (
Decl. Loera, Washington State University).
58.

The DHS Memorandum will likely cause some DACA recipients to leave

Washington colleges and universities. The cost of a college education may make little sense for
students unable to work following graduation. See, Ex. 56 ¶ 7 (Decl. Quinonez). Future DACA
students may be prevented from enrolling. These harms damage the educational mission of
Washington’s institutions of higher education and affect their tuition revenues. See Ex. 57 ¶¶ 4-6
(Decl. Ballinger, University of Washington); Ex. 58 ¶¶ 4-8 (Decl. Loera, Washington State
University).
59.

Rescinding DACA also will hurt the Washington economy. Stripping DACA

recipients of the ability to work legally will cause many to lose their jobs, resulting, among other
things, in less tax revenue for the state. According to one estimate, DACA-eligible residents
contribute approximately $51 million annually in state and local taxes in Washington. See Ex. 3 ¶
14

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 15

7(d) (Decl. Essig, Wiehe and Hill); Ex. 55 ¶¶ 5-7 (Decl. Perez ). Another estimate suggests that
ending DACA would, over a ten-year period, cost the Washington economy $258 million in lost
tax revenue and $6.4 billion in GDP growth. See Ex. 4, Table 1 (Decl. Brannon). DACA recipients
average higher earning capacities than their undocumented peers and are able to better participate
in our economy, for example by purchasing homes and cars that are taxed by our state and local
authorities. See Ex. 5 ¶¶ 10-13 (Decl. Wong).
60.

In sum, the DHS Memorandum’s rescission of DACA affects Washington’s

economy, residents, families, educational institutions, state agencies, and businesses.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF CONNECTICUT
61.

Connecticut is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and has standing to bring this

action because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by Defendants’ rescission of
DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and
proprietary interests. Attorney General George Jepsen brings this action on behalf of Connecticut
at the request of Governor Dannel P. Malloy to protect the interests of Connecticut and its
residents.
62.

Connecticut has an interest, as evidenced by its Constitution and state law, in

prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See Conn. Const. art. First,
§ 20; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-58.
63.

Connecticut's interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its

residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a
quasi-sovereign interest.
64.

Connecticut also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from

the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

15

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 16

65.

Connecticut's interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of Connecticut’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
66.

As of March 31, 2017, USCIS had approved 4,929 initial DACA applications and

5,882 renewals for residents of Connecticut, for a total of 10,811. See Ex. 1 (USCIS Data). The
DACA program has allowed these individuals, many of whom are long-term residents of
Connecticut, to work legally, acquire driver’s licenses, open bank accounts, access lines of credit,
purchase homes and cars, receive in-state tuition at public universities, and obtain employer-based
health insurance, among other benefits.
67.

Connecticut provides in-state tuition to DACA recipients at its public universities

and colleges. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-29. The Defendants' actions will likely cause some DACA
recipients to leave Connecticut colleges and universities. These harms damage the educational
mission of Connecticut’s institutions of higher education and affect their tuition revenues.
68.

Rescinding DACA also will hurt the Connecticut economy. Stripping DACA

recipients of the ability to work legally will cause many to lose their jobs, resulting, among other
things, in less tax revenue for the state.
69.

In sum, Defendants' actions affect Connecticut’s economy, residents, families,

educational institutions, state agencies, and businesses.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF DELAWARE
70.

The State of Delaware has a strong interest in retaining the DACA program. USCIS

has approved approximately 1,450 initial applications from DACA grantees since 2012. See Ex. 1
(USCIS Data). One expert estimates that of that total, at least 1,256 DACA grantees currently work
in Delaware’s economy. See Ex. 53 (Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost
States Billions of Dollars, Center for American Progress, July 21, 2017)
71.

Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to

its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. If DACA is terminated, these grantees
will lose their work authorization. The resulting loss in employment will cause significant loses
16

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 17 of 58 PageID #: 17

in tax revenue and Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”). Over ten years, Delaware can expect to lose
$258 million in tax revenues, and $924.5 million in GDP with the loss of DACA. See Ex. 4 Table
1 (Brannon Decl.).
72.

Moreover, rescinding DACA would adversely impact Delaware’s public

universities. Currently, about 75 DACA grantees attend Delaware State University (“DSU”). See
Ex. 81 (Scott Gross, DSU immigrant students fear Trump’s DACA decision, Delawareonline, Sept.
2 2017). These high achieving students contribute to the university’s mission to advance diversity
and inclusion. These students would be less likely to continue pursuing their education at DSU if
there is no viable employment option available to them upon graduation.
PLAINTIFF COMMONWEALTH OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
73.

The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation empowered to sue and be sued,

and is the local government for the territory constituting the permanent seat of the federal
government. The District is represented by and through its chief legal officer, the Attorney General
for the District of Columbia. The Attorney General has general charge and conduct of all legal
business of the District and all suits initiated by and against the District and is responsible for
upholding the public interest. DC Code § 1-301.81(a)(1).
74.

The District has declared its intent to end discrimination based on race, color,

religion, or national origin. DC Code § 2-1401.01.
75.

The District’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its

residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a
quasi-sovereign interest.
76.

The District also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from

the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
77.

The District has a compelling interest in that the Constitution and federal law of the

U.S. are enforced and protect their residents as designed. In addition, the District has an interest in
protecting its economy and residents.
17

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 18 of 58 PageID #: 18

78.

Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to

its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
79.

The District’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of the District’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
80.

The District has an interest in protecting its residents’ family rights. Most DACA

recipients live in households with American citizen family members.
81.

The rescission of DACA will lead to increased uncertainty in these families, and

will increase the likelihood of splitting DACA recipients from their citizen family
members. Moreover, the rescission of DACA will make employment of DACA recipients more
difficult and will threaten the financial and housing security of some of these families, especially
where the DACA recipient is head of household. The District’s interest in protecting the rights of
families is clearly harmed by the rescission of DACA, and subjects DACA families to potential
separation, financial instability, and housing insecurity.
82.

Many DACA recipients also have families overseas, including parents and

siblings. DACA permitted these recipients to visit these family members through advance
parole. The rescission of DACA will prevent recipients from taking the risk of visiting their
families abroad.
83.

Immigrants are an important part of the District’s economy. Many of the District’s

workers and students are immigrants and many of those immigrants are DACA recipients.
84.

Many DACA recipients attend the colleges and universities in the District as post-

secondary and graduate students. The rescission of DACA will have an adverse effect on both the
students and the colleges and universities. The rescission of DACA will likely cause some DACA
recipients to leave District colleges and universities. Future DACA students will likely be
prevented from enrolling. These harms damage the educational mission of the District’s
institutions of higher education and affect their revenues.

18

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 19 of 58 PageID #: 19

85.

DACA recipients also work for the District government and District businesses.

The District government and businesses have expended time and funds to hire, train, and manage
DACA grantees, and will lose the value of that investment—and in the employees’ ongoing
labor—if employees are not able to continue to work and travel due to DACA’s rescission.
86.

DACA recipients contribute to the District’s tax base by, for example, purchasing

homes and cars that are taxed by the District. The District will lose tax revenue as a result of the
rescission of DACA.
87.

The rescission of DACA affects District residents, families and businesses, as well

as harms the District’s proprietary interests.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF HAWAII
88.

The State of Hawaii represented by and through its Attorney General, is a sovereign

state of the United States of America. Hawaii is aggrieved and has standing to bring this action
because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by Defendants’ rescission of DACA,
including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary
interests.
89.

Hawaii is a state of 1.4 million residents, almost 18% of whom are foreign born.

See Ex. 2.
90.

Almost 600 young people in Hawaii have passed background checks and live and

work legally in Hawaii as a direct result of DACA. See Ex. 1 (USCIS Data).
91.

Hawaii is home to many places of higher education and businesses, which rely

heavily on immigrants, who bring tremendous talent, knowledge, and expertise to academic
communities and to the labor force. Many of these immigrants are DACA grantees.
92.

By the latest available numbers, USCIS had approved 558 initial DACA

applications and 1,740 renewals for residents of Hawaii. Obtaining DACA status has allowed these
individuals, many of whom are long-term residents of Hawaii, to work legally, acquire driver’s
licenses, open bank accounts, access lines of credit, purchase homes and cars, receive in-state
tuition at public universities, and obtain employer-based health insurance, among other benefits.
19

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 20 of 58 PageID #: 20

93.

Rescinding DACA will harm the ability of Hawaii colleges and universities,

including public universities, to satisfy their educational missions and prepare Hawaii residents
for the workforce. There are currently 13 DACA students enrolled for classes in fall 2017 at the
University of Hawaii’s ten campuses. See Ex. 73 (University of Hawai’i, UH and State Leaders
Respond to DACA Program Termination, Sept. 5, 2017).
94.

DACA grantees who are Hawaii residents are eligible for certain benefits at the

University of Hawaii. According to David Lassner, President of the University of Hawaii, “[o]ver
four years ago the University of Hawaii Board of Regents adopted a policy to extend eligibility for
resident tuition rates to undocumented students, including but not limited to those who have filed
for DACA.” See Ex. 73 (University of Hawai’i, UH and State Leaders Respond to DACA Program
Termination, Sept. 5, 2017).
95.

Losing these talented young immigrants will deprive Hawaii state schools of the

special contributions and perspectives they bring to campus communities, both as students and
alumni. If current DACA students are forced to drop out, the University of Hawaii also will lose
the value of the financial assistance it has granted to, and the other resources it has spent, educating
students who ultimately do not graduate.
96.

Rescinding DACA will further deprive Hawaii of the earning potential of graduates

from public universities who are likely to stay here and join the state’s workforce. Ending DACA
would cost Hawaii more than $28.8 million in annual GDP losses. See Ex. 53 (Center for American
Progress, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars, Jul. 21, 2017).
97.

Over the next ten years Hawaii also stands to lose $126 million in tax revenues and

$451.5 million in further GDP losses if DACA is rescinded.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF ILLINOIS
98.

The State of Illinois, by and through its Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, is a

sovereign state of the United States of America. Illinois is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and
has standing to bring this action because of harm to Illinois’ state institutions and economy,
including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign and proprietary interests.
20

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 21 of 58 PageID #: 21

99.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2017, 42,376 individuals residing in Illinois have been

approved for the DACA program, and 37,039 individuals have renewed a DACA application. Ex.
1.
100.

Approximately 36,867 DACA recipients work in the state of Illinois and contribute

to the Illinois economy. Should those workers be removed from Illinois, the state economy would
suffer approximately $2.3 billion in annual GDP loss. Ex. 53.
101.

ITEP estimates that Illinois would lose approximately $54.7 million in local and

state tax revenue if DACA protections are eliminated. Ex. 54 (Misha E. Hill and Meg Wiehe, State
& Local Tax Contributions of Young Undocumented Immigrants, Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy, April 25, 2017).
102.

Illinois also has enacted laws to enable DACA grantees to participate in the

economy professionally. These include providing that no person in Illinois shall be prohibited from
receiving a law license solely because he or she is not a citizen and explicitly allowing DACA
recipients to apply for a license to practice law within the state of Illinois. 705 Ill. Comp. Stat.
205/2.
103.

Furthermore, Illinois has enacted laws and implemented government programs to

support DACA participants. Elimination of DACA would harm these programs.
104.

For example, Illinois law has been amended to facilitate and encourage the

attendance of DACA grantees at public universities in Illinois. DACA participants may obtain instate tuition to attend Illinois’s public universities. 110 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/7e-5. Illinois’s public
universities also accept and provide resources for DACA recipients. See Ex. 66 (University of
Illinois at Chicago, Resources for Undocumented Students); Ex. 67 (Illinois State University,
Admissions and Financial Aid for Undocumented Student Admissions; Ex. 68 (University of
Illinois, Undocumented Applicants, Illinois Admissions).
105.

Furthermore, through the Illinois Dream Act, Public Law No. 97-0233, Illinois law

permits anyone with a valid social security number or taxpayer number, including DACA
recipients, to participate in state-run college financing programs, such as the State Treasurer’s
21

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 22 of 58 PageID #: 22

College Savings Pool, 15 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/16.5, and the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Plan, 110 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 979/45.
106.

Illinois has an interest in ensuring that the investments made in the education of

DACA grantees attending Illinois’s public universities through scholarships and financial aid are
not diminished by a disruption in the DACA program.
107.

A rescission of the DACA program also would disrupt Illinois employers who

employ DACA grantees, resulting in economic loss to the state of Illinois and Illinois employers.
Furthermore, Illinois would be harmed by the loss of local and state tax revenue due to the removal
of DACA program protections for Illinois workers. One expert estimates that rescinding the
DACA program will cost Illinois $6.9 billion over the next ten years. Ex. 3 Table 1 (Decl.
Bannon).
PLAINTIFF STATE OF IOWA
108.

The State of Iowa, represented by and through its Attorney General, Tom Miller, is

a sovereign state of the United States of America. Iowa is aggrieved by Defendants’ action and
has standing to bring this action because of harm to Iowa’s state institutions and economy,
including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary
interests.
109.

The State of Iowa has a strong interest in retaining the DACA program. As of

March 31, 2017, USCIS had approved approximately 2,798 initial DACA applications and 2,780
renewals for residents of Iowa, for a total of 5,578. Ex. 1 (USCIS Data). One expert estimates
that of that total, at least 2,434 DACA grantees currently work in Iowa’s economy. Ex. 53 (Nicole
Prchal Svajlenka, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars, Center for
American Progress, July 21, 2017).
110.

If DACA is terminated, these grantees will lose their work authorization. The

resulting loss in employment will cause significant losses in tax revenue and Gross Domestic
Product (“GDP”). Over ten years, Iowa can expect to lose $258 million in tax revenues, and
$924.5 million in GDP with the loss of DACA. Ex. 4 Table 1 (Brannon Decl.).
22

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 23 of 58 PageID #: 23

111.

Iowa has an interest, as evidenced by its Constitution and state law, in prohibiting

discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See Iowa Const. art. I, Iowa Code
Chapter 216.
112.

Iowa’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents,

including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a quasisovereign interest.
113.

Iowa also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from the

benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
114.

Iowa’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health, safety,

and well-being extends to all of Iowa’s residents, including individuals who suffer indirect injuries
and members of the general public.
115.

In sum, Defendants’ actions affect Iowa’s economy, residents, families, educational

institutions, state agencies, and businesses.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW MEXICO
116.

The State of New Mexico, represented by and through its Attorney General, is a

sovereign state of the United States of America. New Mexico is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions
and has standing to bring this action because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by
Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign,
quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
117.

According to the latest American Community Survey, New Mexico is home to

more than 211,249 foreign-born residents, of whom approximately 7,000 are DACA-eligible
residents.
118.

Foreign-born residents of New Mexico constitute more than 10% of the State’s

population. Some 34.4% of the foreign-born New Mexicans—72,652 persons—are naturalized

23

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 24 of 58 PageID #: 24

citizens eligible to vote in New Mexico. In 2010, 8.4% of all business owners in New Mexico were
foreign-born, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.
119.

Immigrants comprised 12.6% of the state’s workforce in 2013 (or 122,131

workers), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
120.

Of the 876,000 recipients of deferred action nationwide, 7,300 live in New Mexico,

according to the latest figures provided by the USCIS.
121.

ITEP estimates that New Mexico could lose up to $7.5 million in state and local

taxes if DACA were eliminated.
122.

An estimated 5.9% (or 57,438) of registered voters in New Mexico were “New

Americans”—naturalized citizens or the U.S.-born children of immigrants who were raised during
the current era of immigration from Latin America and Asia which began in 1965—according to
an analysis of 2012 Census Bureau data by American Immigration Council.
123.

DACA-eligible residents are estimated to contribute more than $19 million in New

Mexico’s state and local taxes, a figure of particular importance in a state often ranked as among
the poorest in the country. DACA-eligible residents are part of the State’s near-majority Latino
population, which wields some $24.9 billion in consumer purchasing power, and are also part of
the increasing numbers of Asian families in the State.
124.

The 2014 purchasing power of Latinos in New Mexico totaled $23.4 billion—an

increase of 374% since 1990. Asian buying power totaled $1.5 billion—an increase of 724% since
1990, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.
125.

Immigration boosts housing values in communities, and increases in housing values

adds to the health of New Mexico’s economy. From 2000 to 2010, according to the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas, the value added by immigration to the price of the average home
was $2,654 in Bernalillo, the State’s most populous county.
126.

New Mexico’s 37,195 Latino-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $6.5

billion and employed 50,021 people in 2007, the last year for which data is available. The state’s

24

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 25 of 58 PageID #: 25

3,321 Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $1.1 billion and employed 10,739
people in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners.
127.

From 2006 to 2010, there were 11,440 new immigrant business owners in New

Mexico, and they had total net business income of $389 million, which makes up 8.9% of all net
business income in the state, according to Robert Fairlie of the University of California, Santa
Cruz.
128.

New Mexico’s 3,711 foreign students contributed $85.1 million to the state’s

economy in tuition, fees, and living expenses for the 2013-2014 academic year, according
to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
129.

Foreign students contribute to New Mexico’s metropolitan areas. From 2008 to

2012, according to the Brookings Institution, 1,848 foreign students paid $17.8 million in tuition
and $11.3 million in living costs in the Las Cruces metropolitan area.
130.

Foreign students also contribute to innovation in New Mexico. In 2009, “non-

resident aliens” comprised 42.1% of master’s degrees and 42.9% of doctorate degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, according to the Partnership for a New
American Economy.
131.

Latinos in New Mexico paid $2.7 billion in federal taxes and $1.3 billion in

state/local taxes in 2013, according to the Partnership for a New American Economy. In particular,
foreign-born Latinos paid $463 million in federal taxes and $252 million in state/local taxes.
132.

The federal tax contribution of New Mexico’s Latino population included $1.9

billion to Social Security and $441 million to Medicare in 2013. Foreign-born Latinos contributed
$356 million to Social Security and $83 million to Medicare that year.
133.

Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly 4.7% of the state’s workforce (or

45,000 workers) in 2012, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center. If all unauthorized
immigrants were removed from New Mexico, the state would lose $1.8 billion in economic
activity, $809.1 million in gross state product, and approximately 12,239 jobs, even accounting for
adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.
134.

Rescinding DACA in New Mexico will adversely impact current DACA grantees

enrolled in New Mexico’s colleges and universities. Without DACA’s employment authorization,
these students will be unable to plan for the future, apply for and obtain internships, study abroad,
25

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 26 of 58 PageID #: 26

simultaneously work to pay costs and fees, or obtain certain financial aid and scholarships.
Without these students, New Mexico’s institutions of higher education will suffer loss of
enrollment, a reduction in diversity and negative financial consequences.
135.

Significantly, it is common for New Mexico’s families to include both U.S.-born

and foreign born members. Rescinding DACA will jeopardize the health, security and stability of
New Mexico families by forcing separation and alienation.
136.

New Mexico has a continuing interest in protecting and securing the safety and

stability of its families, and that interest mandates the State’s involvement in this litigation.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
137.

The State of North Carolina, represented by Attorney General Josh Stein, is a

sovereign state of the United States of America. North Carolina has standing to bring this action
because it has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries to its sovereignty as a state caused by
Defendants' rescission of DACA.

These harms include injuries to North Carolina's state

institutions and economy, including to its sovereign and proprietary interests.
138.

North Carolina has an interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its

residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health.
139.

According to USCIS, 27,385 initial DACA applications and 22,327 renewal

applications from North Carolina have been approved through the second quarter of 2017. See Ex.
1.
140.

Immigration is a vital catalyst to North Carolina's economy. According to a study

conducted by the Latino Migration Project at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in
1990, only 1.7% of the State's population was foreign-born. By 2014, that proportion had
increased to 7.6%. This demographic change is due, in large part, to industries' recruitment of
foreign-born individuals, primarily of Latin American origin to fill available jobs that have been
created as a result of the expansion of North Carolina's economy. See Ex. 87 (Latino Migration
Project, DACA Program in North Carolina, Perspectives from Immigrants and Community-Based
Organizations, Jan. 2017).

26

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 27 of 58 PageID #: 27

141.

By 2012, as estimated 350,000 people (44% of the state's immigrant population)

did not have legal immigration status. See Ex. 81 (Pew Research Center, U.S. Unauthorized
Immigration Population Estimates, Mar. 2015).
142.

After the institution of the DACA program in 2012, North Carolina had one of the

highest application rates to DACA in the nation. Out of an estimated 26,000 eligible people, 75%
had applied to the DACA program.

By June 2014, USCIS had approved almost 21,000

applications. See Ex. 1 .
143.

North Carolina has one of the largest undocumented high school populations in

the country, with close to 31,000 undocumented students enrolled as of 2015. See Ex. 82
(Technician, Immigrants Still Face Obstacles To Go To College Despite DACA, Mar. 2015) .
There are a total of 16 public universities in North Carolina, enrolling nearly 225,000 students.
See Ex. 83 (University of North Carolina, Our 17 campuses). Affected students attend these
universities, as well as North Carolina's community and technical colleges. Rescinding DACA
permits will cause students currently enrolled to leave North Carolina community and technical
colleges and universities. In addition, future DACA students may be prevented from finishing
their high school education or from enrolling in North Carolina's colleges and universities.
These harms damage the educational mission of North Carolina's institutions of higher learning
and affect their tuition revenues.
144.

According to the 2010 census, North Carolina is the ninth wealthiest state in terms

of gross domestic product. See Ex. 85( Greyhill Advisors, GDP By State). Charlotte, North
Carolina's largest city is the second largest banking center in the United States. See Ex. 84 (North
Carolina History Project, Charlotte Soars To Become The Nation’s Second Largest Financial
Center). The Research Triangle Park, home to more than 170 companies and federal agencies, is
the largest and oldest continuously operating research and science park in the United States. See
Ex. 86 (Research Triangle Park). The market to employ skilled workers to fuel these expanding
economies is highly competitive. Rescinding work authorization for DACA recipients will cripple
the ability for North Carolina's companies to attract and maintain a robust workforce, adversely
27

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 28 of 58 PageID #: 28

affecting the companies' ability to develop and deliver products and services. In addition, the
inability to maintain a workforce may induce companies to relocate out of North Carolina.
145.

DACA recipients make significant contributions to North Carolina's tax base. The

DACA program has encouraged tens of thousands of individuals to secure driver's licenses,
continue their education, obtain employment, secure better employment or benefits, and integrate
themselves into the fabric of North Carolina society.
146.

The rescission of DACA creates upheaval in the operation of state-run programs,

including programs relating to public benefits and scholarships, as well as in the operation of North
Carolina's private economy. One expert estimates that rescinding the DACA program will cost
North Carolina 7.8 billion dollars over the next ten years. See Ex. 4 (Decl. Brannon, Table 1).
147.

As a result of the DHS Memorandum, North Carolina's residents, families, and

businesses will suffer physical and economic harms. In addition, DHS Memorandum also harms
North Carolina's proprietary interests.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF OREGON
148.

Oregon is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and has standing to bring this action

because of its injuries caused by Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate, longterm, and irreparable injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
149.

The Governor is the chief executive officer of the State of Oregon. The Governor

is responsible for overseeing the operations of the State of Oregon and ensuring that its laws are
faithfully executed.
150.

The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of Oregon. The Attorney

General’s powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern and at the
request of state agencies and officials.
151.

Oregon has codified its state policy that practices of unlawful discrimination against

any of its inhabitants because of religion or national origin are “a matter of state concern,” and that
such discrimination “menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.” Or. Rev.
Stat. § 659A.006.
28

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 29 of 58 PageID #: 29

152.

Oregon’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents,

including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a quasisovereign interest.
153.

Oregon also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from the

benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
154.

Oregon’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of Oregon’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
155.

Oregon has a strong interest in promoting employment and business creation and

in the tax revenues that result.
156.

Oregon is home to more than 11,000 DACA recipients, many of whom are long-

term residents of Oregon. See Ex. 1. The DACA program has allowed these individuals to work
legally, acquire driver’s licenses, open bank accounts, access lines of credit, purchase homes and
cars, obtain employer-based health insurance, among other benefits. Oregon also has many
individuals who would have become eligible for DACA in the coming months or years if
Defendants had not acted to end the program.
157.

Immigration is an important economic driver in Oregon. Many Oregon workers are

immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are DACA recipients.
158.

Rescinding DACA will harm the ability of Oregon colleges and universities,

including public universities, to satisfy their educational missions and prepare Oregon residents
for the workforce. Oregon’s colleges and universities also prepare students to be the next
generation of political, civic, and private and public sector leaders.
159.

Oregon invests in its educational mission by also investing in its DACA recipient

students. It does this by, among other things, offering free comprehensive K-12 education to
undocumented students, and, upon graduation from an Oregon high school or GED program,

29

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 30 of 58 PageID #: 30

offering tuition equity (in-state tuition benefits) and access to state financial aid to Oregon
residents who are undocumented, including DACA recipients.
160.

Portland State University, based in Portland, Oregon, is a public university that

enrolls and in some cases employs DACA recipients. Losing the ability to employ these DACA
recipients means the university loses economic and training investments. The potential loss of
those enrolled means a loss of graduates and future alumni who would invest their time and talents
in the university and community. Other Oregon colleges and universities, including community
colleges, also enroll and in some cases employ DACA recipients.
161.

Eastern Oregon University, based in La Grande, Oregon, and Western Oregon

University, based in Monmouth, Oregon, are public universities that enroll DACA recipients, and
are partner universities with USDream project, which provides scholarships to DACA students
from non-tuition equity states to come to Oregon partner universities to study.
162.

The rescission of DACA will likely cause some DACA recipients to leave Oregon

colleges and universities, or take longer to complete their course of study because they can no
longer work to support their educational expenses that are not covered by financial aid. The cost
of a college education may make little sense for students unable to work following graduation,
which may discourage students from enrolling or continuing with their course of study. In one
study, more than 90% of the respondent DACA grantees who were in school agreed that because
of DACA, they pursued educational opportunities that they previously could not. See Ex. 22
(Center for American Progress, New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and
Educational Outcomes, Oct. 18, 2016). These harms damage the educational mission of Oregon’s
institutions of higher education and affect their tuition revenues. It also undermines Oregon’s
investment in and efforts to develop a well-educated workforce that can contribute to the State’s
economy and competitiveness. The harm is for years to come, not just the short-term.
163.

Rescinding DACA also will hurt the Oregon economy. Stripping DACA recipients

of the ability to work legally will cause many to lose their jobs, resulting, among other things, in
less tax revenue for the state. According to one estimate, DACA-eligible residents contribute
30

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 31 of 58 PageID #: 31

approximately $20 million in state and local taxes in Oregon, and the State would lose
approximately $11 million in state and local tax revenue if the DACA program were rescinded.
See Ex. 54 (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, State and Local Contributions of Young
Undocumented Immigrants, Apr. 2017). It also has been estimated that removing DACA workers
would cost Oregon more than $600 million in GDP. See Ex. 53 (Center for American Progress, A
New Threat to DACA Could Cost State Billions of Dollars¸ Jul. 21, 2017). Research shows that
DACA recipients average higher earning capacities than their undocumented peers and are able to
better participate in our economy, for example by purchasing homes and starting businesses that
are taxed by our state and local authorities. See Ex. 22.
164.

In sum, Defendants’ actions in rescinding DACA adversely and significantly

affects Oregon’s economy, residents, families, educational institutions, state agencies, and
businesses.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF PENSYLVANIA
165.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by and through its Attorney

General, “the chief law officer of the Commonwealth,” is a sovereign state of the United States of
America. PA Const., Art. IV, § 4.1.
166.

Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn, an early Quaker and advocate of

democracy, immigration and religious freedom and places great value on tolerance, diversity,
multiculturalism and an openness to others of different races, religions and nationalities.
167.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania files this action because Defendants’

rescission of DACA, has caused injuries to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary
interests. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also has standing under
the parens patriae doctrine to protect the people, schools, institutions and economy of
Pennsylvania including quasi-sovereign interests such as the general health, comfort and welfare
of the citizens of Pennsylvania. In filing this action, the Attorney General seeks to redress the
31

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 32 of 58 PageID #: 32

injuries to the interests described herein, which are separate from the narrow interests of particular
individuals.
168.

Pennsylvania’s laws reflect its commitment to its values of diversity,

multiculturalism and openness to others of different races and nationalities.

For example,

Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act recognizes that an individual’s opportunity to obtain
employment, public accommodation, housing accommodation and commercial property without
discrimination on the basis of “race, color, familial status, … ancestry [and] national origin” is a
“civil right” that is “enforceable” under Pennsylvania law. 43 P.S. § 953 (“The opportunity for an
individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified, and to obtain all the accommodations,
advantages, facilities and privileges of any public accommodation and of any housing
accommodation and commercial property without discrimination because of race, color, familial
status, religious creed, ancestry, handicap or disability, age, sex, national origin, the use of a guide
or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because
the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals is hereby recognized as and declared to
be a civil right which shall be enforceable as set forth in this act.”). See also 43 P.S. § 955.
169.

Pennsylvania is home to approximately 15,000 DACA-eligible immigrants. See Ex.

170.

As of March 31, 2017, initial DACA applications had been accepted for 5,889

54.

young immigrants living in Pennsylvania. See Ex. 1.
171.

Of those Pennsylvania DACA recipients, it is estimated that 5,123 are working in

Pennsylvania where they generate approximately $357,080,795 of economic activity annually.
See Ex. 53.
172.

In connection with this significant Pennsylvania economic activity, workers

enrolled in DACA generate an estimated $20.7 million in state and local taxes in Pennsylvania
each year. See Ex. 54.
173.

Among other items set forth herein, Pennsylvania is particularly concerned that,

based on the DHS’ Memorandum rescinding DACA, immigrants who shared their sensitive,
32

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 33 of 58 PageID #: 33

personal information with the federal government in reliance on DACA’s promise that their
information would not be used against them in immigration enforcement proceedings will now
face exactly that – a federal government that lured these young people to share their personal
information and will now break its promise and use that information to deport them. The DHS
Memorandum, notably, fails to honor the federal government’s promise to these important
economic contributors to Pennsylvania. And Defendants’ actions will cause Pennsylvania to lose
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity – and tens of millions of state and local tax
dollars – annually.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
174.

The State of Rhode Island, represented by and through its Attorney General, is a

sovereign state of the United States of America. Rhode Island is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions
and has standing to bring this action because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by
Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign,
quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
175.

The State of Rhode Island has prohibited practices that discriminate against any of

its inhabitants because of race, color, or national origin. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-112-1.
176.

Rhode Island’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its

residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a
quasi-sovereign interest.
177.

Rhode Island also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from

the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
178.

Rhode Island’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of Rhode Island’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
33

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 34 of 58 PageID #: 34

179.

According to the latest American Community Survey, Rhode Island is home to

more than 140,000 foreign-born residents. See Ex. 79 (Rhode Island State Center, Census Data
Bulletin, March 2014).
180.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are 5,000 DACA-eligible

residents in Rhode Island. See Ex. 80 (Migration Policy Institute, State/County DACA Estimates).
181.

According to USCIS, 1,229 initial DACA applications and 1,733 renewal

applications from Rhode Island have been approved through the second quarter of 2017. See Ex.
1.
182.

The market for highly skilled workers and employees is extremely competitive.

Rescinding the work authorization of DACA grantees will inhibit Rhode Island companies’ ability
to adequately staff their organizations, develop their workforces, and recruit talent. If recruiting
efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products
and services may be adversely affected.
183.

Rhode Island expended time and funds to hire, train, and manage DACA recipients.

Rhode Island wastes that time and money, and loses the value of employee labor, if employees are
not able to continue to work due to DACA’s rescission.
184.

DACA recipients make significant contributions to state and local taxes. DACA

recipients average higher earning capacities than their undocumented peers and are able to better
participate in our economy, for example by purchasing homes and cars that are taxed by our state
and local authorities. According to ITEP, the State of Rhode Island alone will lose $2.6 million in
state and local taxes if DACA protections are lost. See Ex. 54.
185.

According to the Center for American Progress, Rhode Island will lose more than

$61 million in annual GDP as a result of losing DACA workers. See Ex. 53.
186.

In sum, the DHS Memorandum’s rescission of DACA affects Rhode Island

residents, families, and businesses, as well as harms Rhode Island’s proprietary interests.

34

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 35 of 58 PageID #: 35

PLAINTIFF STATE OF VERMONT
187.

The State of Vermont, represented by and through its Attorney General, is a

sovereign state of the United States of America. Vermont is aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and
has standing to bring this action because of the injury to its sovereignty as a state caused by
Defendants’ rescission of DACA, including immediate and irreparable injuries to its sovereign,
quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
188.

The Attorney General is empowered to advance Vermont’s strong and important

public policy against unlawful discrimination. The Common Benefits Clause of Vermont’s
Constitution provides that government “is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit,
protection, and security of the people, nation, or community,” not for the “advantage of any single
person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community.” Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7.
189.

The State of Vermont has prohibited practices that discriminate against any of its

inhabitants because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, and place of birth. 9 V.S.A. § 4502;
21 V.S.A. § 495.
190.

Vermont’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents,

including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a quasisovereign interest.
191.

Vermont also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from the

benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges
provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
192.

Vermont’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health,

safety, and well-being extends to all of Vermont’s residents, including individuals who suffer
indirect injuries and members of the general public.

35

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 36 of 58 PageID #: 36

193.

According to the latest American Community Survey, Vermont is home to over

26,000 foreign-born residents. 1
194.

According to United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), 42 initial

DACA applications and 162 renewal applications from Vermont have been approved through the
second quarter of 2017. Ex. 1 (USCIS Data).
195.

One expert estimates that of that total, at least 37 DACA grantees currently work

in Vermont’s economy. Ex. 53 (Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost
States Billions of Dollars, Center for American Progress, July 21, 2017). If DACA is terminated,
these grantees will lose their work authorization. The resulting loss in employment will cause
significant loses in tax revenue and Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”). Over ten years, Vermont
can expect to $2,429,910 in GDP with the loss of DACA. Id.
196.

The market for highly skilled workers and employees is extremely competitive.

Rescinding the work authorization of DACA recipients will inhibit Vermont companies’ ability to
adequately staff their organizations, develop their workforces, and recruit talent. If recruiting
efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products
and services may be adversely affected.
197.

DACA recipients make significant contributions to state and local taxes. DACA

recipients average higher earning capacities than their undocumented peers and are able to better
participate in our economy, for example by purchasing homes and cars that are taxed by our state
and local authorities. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (“ITEP”), the
State of Vermont alone will lose $48,000 in state and local taxes if DACA protections are lost. See
Ex. 54 (2017 DACA Tax).
198.

In sum, President Trump’s Executive Order rescinding DACA affects Vermont

residents, families, and businesses, as well as harms Vermont’s proprietary interests.
1

U.S. Census Bureau, Place of birth for the foreign-born population in the United States: Vermont, 20112015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; American Immigration Council, Fact Sheet: New Americans
in Vermont (Jan. 1, 2015), available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americansvermont.
36

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 37 of 58 PageID #: 37

PLAINTIFF COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
199.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has a strong interest in retaining the DACA

program. USCIS has approved over 12,000 initial applications from DACA grantees since 2012.
See Ex. 1.
200.

If DACA is terminated, these grantees will lose their work authorization. The

resulting loss in employment will cause significant loses in tax revenue and Gross Domestic
Product (“GDP”). Over ten years, Virginia can expect to lose $1.03 billion in tax revenues, and
$3.68 billion in GDP with the loss of DACA. See Ex. 4, Table 1 (Brannon Decl.).
201.

Moreover, rescinding DACA would adversely impact Virginia’s public colleges

and universities. According to the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, over a thousand
DACA grantees attend Virginia’s two-year and four-year public institutions of higher
learning. These students would be less likely to continue pursuing their education at those
institutions if there is no viable employment option available to them upon graduation.
DEFENDANTS
202.

Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and authorized the

issuance of the DHS Memorandum that purports to rescind DACA. He is sued in his official
capacity.
203.

Defendant DHS is a federal cabinet agency responsible for implementing the

DACA program. DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, and is an
agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
204.

Defendant USCIS is an Operational and Support Component agency within DHS.

USCIS is the sub-agency responsible for administering the DACA program.
205.

Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is an Operational

and Support Component agency within DHS. ICE is responsible for enforcing federal immigration
law, including identifying, apprehending, detaining, and removing non-citizens.

37

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 38 of 58 PageID #: 38

206.

Defendant Elaine C. Duke is the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security. She is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act,
and oversees USCIS and ICE. She is sued in her official capacity.
207.

Defendant the United States of America includes all government agencies and

departments responsible for the implementation and rescission of the DACA program.
ALLEGATIONS
Establishment of the DACA Program.
208.

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a

memorandum establishing the DACA program (the “2012 DACA Memorandum”). See Ex. 34
(2012 DACA Memorandum). 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.
209.

Deferred action is a well-established form of prosecutorial discretion under which

the government forbears from taking removal action against an individual for a designated period.
The 2012 DACA Memorandum explained that DACA covers “certain young people who were
brought to this country as children and know only this country as home” and that the immigration
laws are not “designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have
lived or even speak the language.” Id. at 1-2.
210.

The 2012 DACA Memorandum established that an applicant would be considered

for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion only by satisfying each of the following criteria:
a. came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
b. had continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding
the date of the memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of
the memorandum;
c. was currently in school, had graduated from high school, had obtained a general
education development certificate, or was an honorably discharged veteran of
the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
38

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 39 of 58 PageID #: 39

d. had not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense,
multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security
or public safety; and
e. was not above the age of thirty.
Id. at 1.
211.

USCIS described DACA as follows: “Deferred action is a discretionary

determination to defer a removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. For
purposes of future inadmissibility based upon unlawful presence, an individual whose case has
been deferred is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period in which deferred action
is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in
the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period
deferred action is in effect. However, deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an
individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.” See Ex.
14, Question 1 (USCIS Help Center, DACA FAQs).
212.

As the government has recognized, our nation “continue[s] to benefit . . . from the

contributions of those young people who have come forward and want nothing more than to
contribute to our country and our shared future.” See Ex. 15 (Letter from Secretary Jeh Charles
Johnson to Rep. Judy Chu, Dec. 30, 2016).
The DACA Application Process
213.

USCIS affirmatively represented to DACA applicants that “[a]ll individuals who

believe they meet the guidelines . . . may affirmatively request consideration of DACA from
USCIS through this process,” and after USCIS receives the applicant’s forms, evidence, supporting
documents and application fee, “USCIS will review them for completeness.” USCIS further
affirmatively represented to DACA applicants that if it determines that the request is complete,
USCIS will send the applicant notices of receipt and for needed appointments, and then review the

39

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 40 of 58 PageID #: 40

applications “on an individual, case-by-case basis” and notify applicants of its determination in
writing. See Ex. 16 (USCIS Help Center, How do I request consideration of DACA?).
214.

In order to apply for the DACA program, applicants had to submit extensive

documentation establishing that they meet the eligibility criteria. Applicants had to submit a Form
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, and pay a $495 fee. See Ex. 14 at Questions 2841; see also Ex. 17 (USCIS, I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
(explaining that the filing fee for a DACA application cannot be waived).
215.

DACA applicants had to undergo biometric and biographic background checks.

When conducting these checks, DHS reviewed the applicant’s biometric and biographic
information “against a variety of databases maintained by DHS and other federal government
agencies.” See Ex. 14 at Questions 23. If any information “indicates that [the applicant’s] presence
in the United States threatens public safety or national security,” the applicant will be ineligible
for DACA absent “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at Question 65.
216.

Once individuals were admitted into the DACA program, internal USCIS

“Standard Operating Procedures” dictate that, absent an “Egregious Public Safety” issue, DACA
grantees should not be terminated from the program until the government has provided a “Notice
of Intent to Terminate” which “thoroughly explain[s]” the grounds for the termination.” See Ex.
18 at 132, Appendix I (DHS, National Standard Operating Procedures (SOP): Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, Apr. 4, 2013). DHS policy further provided that the grantees of such notice
should be afforded 33 days to “file a brief or statement contesting the grounds cited in the Notice
of Intent to Terminate” prior to termination of participation in the DACA program. Id.
217.

At the expiration of their two-year DACA term, grantees could seek renewal. As

USCIS has represented, DACA applicants “may be considered for renewal of DACA” if they meet

40

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 41 of 58 PageID #: 41

the guidelines for consideration and meet other criteria which “must be met for consideration of
DACA renewal.” See Ex. 19 (USCIS Help Center, How will USCIS evaluate my request for
renewal of DACA?).
Benefits Provided Under the DACA Program
218.

DACA confers numerous benefits on DACA grantees. Notably, DACA grantees

are granted the right not to be arrested or detained based solely on their immigration status during
the time period their deferred action is in effect. See Ex. 14, Question 9.
219.

DACA grantees also are granted eligibility for work authorization. As USCIS has

explained, “an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment
authorization for the period of deferred action . . . .’” Id., Question 1.
220.

DACA grantees are eligible to receive certain public benefits. These include Social

Security, retirement, and disability benefits, and, in certain states, benefits such as driver’s licenses
or unemployment insurance. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611(b)(2)-(3), 1621(d). In the State of Washington,
DACA holders also are eligible for certain state financial aid programs and state-funded food
assistance. See Wash. Rev. Code § 28B.92.010; Wash. Admin. Code §§ 388-400-0050, 388-4240001, 388-424-0030. In the State of New York, DACA holders are eligible for teaching and
nursing licenses. See Comm. of Educ. Regs. §§ 59.4; 80-1.3; Ex. 78 (NYS Board of Regents Press
Release, Feb. 24, 2016).
221.

DACA enables grantees to secure equal access to numerous other benefits and

opportunities on which Americans depend, enabling grantees to open bank accounts, obtain credit
cards, start businesses, purchase homes and cars, and conduct other aspects of daily life that are
otherwise often unavailable for undocumented immigrants. See Ex. 5 (Wong Decl.).
222.

DACA has enabled hundreds of thousands of young people “to enroll in colleges

and universities, complete their education, start businesses that help improve our economy, and

41

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 42 of 58 PageID #: 42

give back to our communities as teachers, medical professionals, engineers, and entrepreneurs—
all on the books.” See Ex. 15 (Letter from Sec’y Johnson).
223.

These positive effects have rippled throughout the States’ economies. Rescinding

DACA would not only rip away the life-changing benefits to individual DACA grantees, but would
also reverse the benefits to the community at large, including innumerable small businesses, nonprofits, and governments. 2
The Government’s Assurances That the Information Provided by DACA Applicants Would
be Kept Confidential and Not Used for Enforcement
224.

When the DACA program was first implemented, many eligible young people were

reluctant to voluntarily disclose information that could help facilitate their removal from the United
States. To encourage applications, DHS repeatedly promised applicants that information they
provided as part of the DACA application process would “not later be used for immigration
enforcement purposes.” Ex. 15 (Letter from Sec’y Johnson).
225.

Moreover, the approval notice granting deferred action under DACA lists only

“fraud or misrepresentation” in the application process or “[s]ubsequent criminal activity” as
grounds for revoking DACA. Ex. 24 (USCIS, DACA Approval Notice).
226.

The government’s commitment to the DACA program was further communicated

to young people through its publication entitled “National Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)” (the “DACA SOP”). Ex. 18. This document
sets forth the standards agency applies concerning DACA applications with nearly 150 pages of
specific instructions for granting or denying deferred action.
2

See e.g., Ex. 20 (Ike Brannon, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing DACA, the Cato Institute, Jan. 18,
2017) (“The deportation of DACA participants would cost the American economy billions of dollars, as well as
billions of tax dollars foregone, while doing little to address the true concerns that Americans may have about
unauthorized immigrants”); Ex. 21 (Tom Wong, et al., DACA Grantees’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue
to Grow, Center for American Progress, Aug. 28, 2017) (quoting multiple DACA grantees whose small businesses
will suffer or even close if DACA is rescinded); Ex. 22 (Tom Wong et al., New Study of DACA Beneficiaries
Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes, Center for American Progress, Oct. 18, 2016) (study showing
that 9 percent of DACA grantees work at non-profits, a significant percentage work in education, and 6 percent
started their own business, including one owner who employs nine people and hopes to continue to grow and “hire
even more people from the community” [internal brackets and quotation marks omitted]).

42

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 43 of 58 PageID #: 43

227.

USCIS affirmatively represented to DACA applicants that, except in limited

circumstances, “[i]nformation provided in [a DACA request] is protected from disclosure to ICE
and CBP for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings.” Ex. 25 (USCIS Help Center,
Will the information I share in my request for DACA be used for immigration enforcement
purposes?).
228.

USCIS affirmatively represented to DACA applicants that, except in limited

circumstances, “[i]f you have submitted request for consideration of DACA and USCIS decides
not to defer your case . . . your case will not be referred to ICE for purposes of removal
proceedings.” Ex. 26 (USCIS Help Center, If USCIS does not exercise deferred action in my case,
will I be placed in removal proceedings?).
229.

In the exceptional circumstances when USCIS refers a DACA applicant to ICE,

USCIS affirmatively represented to DACA applicants that “information related to your family
members or guardians that is contained in your request will not be referred to ICE for purposes of
immigration enforcement against family members or guardians.” Ex. 27 (USCIS Help Center, If
my DACA case is referred to ICE for immigration enforcement purposes or if I receive an NTA,
will information related to my family members and guardians also be referred to ICE for
immigration enforcement purposes?).
230.

USCIS affirmatively represented to employers of DACA applicants that, except in

limited circumstances, if they provide their employees "with information regarding his or her
employment to support a request for consideration of DACA . . . . This information will not be
shared with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes.” Ex. 28 (USCIS Help Center, If I
provide my employee with information regarding his or her employment to support a request for
consideration of DACA, will that information be used for immigration enforcement purposes
against me and/or my company?).
231.

The government’s representations that information provided by a DACA recipient

would not be used against him or her for later immigration enforcement proceedings were
unequivocal and atypical. For example, the federal government does not make the same
43

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 44 of 58 PageID #: 44

representations for participants in other similar programs, such as Temporary Protected Status.
These assurances were key to the success of the DACA initiative. By making repeated, unique,
and strong representations, the federal government induced persons to rely on those representations
and apply to become DACA grantees despite the potential risks.
The Government’s Statements Regarding Continuity and Fair Treatment for DACA
Grantees
232.

Numerous public officials from both political parties have reinforced the federal

government’s promise to provide continuity and fair treatment to DACA grantees, and have
recognized that DACA grantees have relied on the government’s representations in applying for
DACA. For example, in December 2016, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles
Johnson acknowledged that there are 750,000 DACA grantees who have “relied on the U.S.
government’s representations” about DACA, and asserted that “representations made by the U.S.
government, upon which DACA applicants most assuredly relied, must continue to be honored.”
Ex. 15.
233.

On December 8, 2016, then-President-elect Trump stated in an interview with TIME

magazine that he would find an accommodation for DACA grantees, stating, “We’re going to work
something out that’s going to make people happy and proud.” He further recognized, “[DACA
grantees] got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here.
Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because
they don’t know what’s going to happen.” Ex. 29 (Michael Scherer, Person of the Year 2016,
TIME Magazine, Dec. 2016).
234.

Again, on January 18, 2017, then President-elect Trump promised in an interview

with Fox & Friends that he was working on a plan to make DACA grantees “very happy.” He
further stated, “We’re working on a plan right now. And that plan, over the next two to three
months, is going to come out. And it’s a plan that’s going to be very firm, but it’s going to have a
lot of heart.” Ex. 30 (Francesca Chambers, Trump signals he’s softening on immigration as he says
he’s ‘working on a plan’ that will make DREAMers ‘very happy,’ Daily Mail, Jan. 18, 2017).
44

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 45 of 58 PageID #: 45

235.

In January 2017, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stated that the government must

ensure that “the rug doesn’t get pulled out from under” DACA grantees, who have “organize[d]
[their] li[ves] around” the DACA program. Ex. 31 (CNN, Transcript of CNN Town Hall with
Speaker Paul Ryan, Jan. 12, 2017).
236.

On January 25, 2017, President Trump again stated in an interview with David Muir

that “[DACA grantees] shouldn’t be very worried. I do have a big heart.” Ex. 32 (ABC News,
Transcript of ABC News anchor David Muir interview with Donald Trump, Jan. 25, 2017).
237.

On March 29, 2017, Secretary Kelly reaffirmed that “DACA status” is a

“commitment . . . by the government towards the DACA person, or the so-called Dreamer.” Ex.
33 (Ted Hesson & Seung Min Kim, Wary Democrats Look to Kelly for Answers on Immigration,
Politico, Mar. 29, 2017).
238.

On April 21, 2017, President Trump confirmed that his Administration’s policy is

not to deport DACA grantees, and suggested that they “should rest easy.” Ex. 34 (The Associated
Press, Transcript of interview with Trump, Apr. 21, 2017).

President Trump’s Statements about Mexicans
239.

Despite these various and repeated promises to DACA grantees made by the federal

government and by President Trump, including a recognition of DACA’s value and successes,
President Trump has a long history of disparaging Mexicans, who comprise the vast majority of
DACA grantees.
240.

In announcing his presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump compared

Mexican immigrants to rapists, stating: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their
best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re
bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people.” Ex. 35 (Washington Post, Transcript of Donald Trump’s
Presidential Bid Announcement, June 16, 2015).

45

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 46 of 58 PageID #: 46

241.

During the first Republican presidential debate, then-candidate Trump again re-

stated his distaste for immigrants from Mexico: “The Mexican government is much smarter, much
sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for
them. They don’t want to take care of them.” Ex. 36 (Andrew O’Reilly, At GOP debate, Trump
says ‘stupid’ U.S. leaders are being duped by Mexico, Fox News, Aug. 6, 2015.
242.

Soon after, on August 25, 2015, then-candidate Trump refused to answer questions

about immigration from Jorge Ramos, a Mexican-American and the top news anchor at Univision,
a Spanish-language news channels. After sending his bodyguard to physically remove Mr. Ramos,
then-candidate Trump derisively told Mr. Ramos to “Go back to Univision.” Ex. 37 (Phillip
Rucker, First, Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos out of his news conference. Then
things got interesting, The Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2015).
243.

In May 2016, then-candidate Trump referred to anti-Trump protestors who carried

the Mexican flag on Twitter as “criminals” and “thugs.” Ex. 38 (Donald Trump, The protestors in
New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag, Twitter, May 25, 2016), and Ex. 39
(Donald Trump, Many of the thugs that attacked peaceful Trump supporters in San Jose were
illegals, Twitter, June 4, 2016).
244.

In June 2016, then-candidate Trump impugned the integrity of a federal judge

presiding over a lawsuit against one of his businesses because the judge is Hispanic. Suggesting
his own opinions are anti-Hispanic, then-candidate Trump commented that Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s
unfavorable rulings “[H]as to do with perhaps that I’m very, very strong on the border. . . Now, he
is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me.” Ex. 40 (Jose A. DelReal and Katie Zezima,
Trump’s personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts, The Washington
Post, June 1, 2016).
245.

In an interview with CBS News on June 5, 2016, then-candidate Trump again

reiterated his anti-Mexican views, noting that “[Judge Curiel]’s a member of a club or society very
strongly, pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias.” Ex. 41 (Transcript of Face the
Nation, CBS News, June 5, 2016). Judge Curiel is a member of is the San Diego Chapter of the
46

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 47 of 58 PageID #: 47

La Raza Lawyers Association. See Ex. 42 (Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Trump supporters’ false claim
that Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group, The Washington Post, June 7, 2016).
246.

On August 21, 2015, two men urinated on a sleeping Latino man and then beat him

with a metal pole. At the police station, they stated “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals
need to be deported.” When asked about the incident, then-candidate Trump failed to condemn the
men, instead stating that they were “passionate.” Specifically, Trump stated, “[i]t would be a
shame . . . I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country
and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.” Ex. 43 (Adrian Walker,
‘Passionate’ Trump fans behind homeless man’s beating?, The Boston Globe, Aug. 21, 2015).
247.

In October 2016, during a presidential debate,then-candidate Trump responded to

a question about immigration by stating: “We have some bad hombres here and we’re going to get
them out.” Ex. 44 (Katie Zezima, Trump on immigration: There are ‘bad hombres’ in the United
States, The Washington Post, Aug. 30, 2017).
248.

On January 27, 2017, newly-inaugurated President Trump and Mexico’s President

Peña Nieto discussed President Trump’s proposal for a border wall over the phone. During that
transcribed conversation, President Trump again referred to “hombres” stating: “You have some
pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with, and we are willing to help you with
that big-league. But they have to be knocked out and you have not done a good job of knocking
them out.” Ex. 45 (Greg Miller et. al., Full Transcripts of Trump’s Calls with Mexico and
Australia, The Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2017).
249.

On August 25, 2017, President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff

Joe Arpaio, who was to be sentenced for criminal contempt for failing to comply with a federal
judge’s order to stop racially profiling Latinos. See Ex. 46 (Julie Hirschfield Davis and Maggie
Haberman, Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration,
The N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 2017).
250.

Arpaio had been detaining people ostensibly because they had violated the law. But

in practice, his office detained huge numbers of individuals solely because they looked Latino,
47

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 48 of 58 PageID #: 48

without any reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct. See generally Melendres v. Arpaio, Findings
of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 2:07-cv-02513-GMS, ECF Doc. No.579 (D. Az. May 24, 2013).
After a federal court enjoined that practice in 2011, Arpaio continued his unlawful and
discriminatory practices unabated, “announc[ing] to the world and to his subordinates that he was
going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise.” United States v. Arpaio,
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 2:16-cr-01012-SRB, ECF Doc. No. 210 at 13 (D. Az. July
31, 2017). On July 31, 2017, a federal court held Arpaio in criminal contempt, holding that he had
willfully acted in “flagrant disregard” of the injunction. Id.
251.

Before issuing the pardon, President Trump asked, “Was Sheriff Joe convicted for

doing his job?” Ex. 46. After issuing the pardon, President Trump sent a tweet calling Mr. Arpaio
“an American patriot.” Id.
252.

As President Trump’s statements about Mexico and those with Mexican roots

show, the President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt
to secure support from his constituency, even when such impulses are impermissible motives for
directing governmental policy.
Trump Administration’s Threatening Statements about Deporting Immigrants
253.

On June 13, 2017, Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan testified in front of the

House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security, stating as to “every
immigrant in the country without papers,” that they “should be uncomfortable. You should look
over your shoulder. And you need to be worried.” Hearing on the ICE and CBP F.Y. 2018 Budget
Before the Subcomm. on Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 115th Cong.
(2017) 2017 WLNR 18737622. CNN reported that Homan “doubled down” on these statements
in an interview later that week, stating that “Trump and his administration have made clear that
any undocumented immigrant could be arrested and face deportation proceedings at any time,
unless they have current and valid protection under DACA.” Ex. 48 (Tal Kopan, ICE Director:
Undocumented immigrants ‘should be afraid,’ CNN, June 6, 2017).

48

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 49 of 58 PageID #: 49

254.

On April 19, 2017, United States Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions stated in

an interview on Fox News’ “Happening Now,” program—in response to a question regarding the
deportation of a DACA recipient—that “[e]verybody in the country illegally is subject to being
deported, so people come here and they stay here a few years and somehow they think they are not
subject to being deported -- well, they are. . . . we can’t promise people who are here unlawfully
that they aren’t going to be deported.” Ex. 49 (Adam Shaw, Sessions defends immigration policies
after reported ‘DREAMer’ deportation, Fox News, Apr. 19, 2017).
President Trump Rescinds DACA in Response to the Litigation Threats of a State Found To
Have Discriminated Against Latinos/Hispanics Nine Times Since 2012
255.

On June 29, 2017, the Attorneys General of ten states, led by the State of Texas,

sent U.S. Attorney General Sessions a letter threatening to add claims to litigation currently
pending in the Southern District of Texas “to challenge both the DACA program and the remaining
expanded DACA permits,” if the Executive Branch did not agree to end the DACA program by
September 5, 2017.
256.

The demand that President Trump eliminate DACA is part of a history of

intentional discrimination against Latinos/Hispanics by the State of Texas.
257.

Over the preceding decade, federal courts have repeatedly found the State of Texas

liable for engaging in unlawful discrimination based on race and/or national origin.
258.

For example, in Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133, 161 (D.D.C. 2012),

three federal judges blocked a Congressional and State House redistricting plan after finding that
it “was enacted with discriminatory purpose.”
259.

The litigation eventually culminated in a ruling by a three-judge panel on August

15, 2017 finding, again, that the 2010 congressional districts had been created with “racially
discriminatory intent” against Latinos and African American voters. Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV360, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129982, at *55 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2017).

49

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 50 of 58 PageID #: 50

260.

On October 9, 2014, in separate litigation challenging a state voter photo

identification (“ID”) law, a Texas federal district court judge found that the provision had been
“imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose” and “constitute[d] an unconstitutional
poll tax.” Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 633 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
261.

On remand from the Fifth Circuit, a federal district court concluded that the 2011

Legislature intentionally discriminated against minority voters by requiring presentation of a photo
ID when casting their ballots. Veasey v. Abbott, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54253, at *14-18 (S.D.
Tex. Apr. 10, 2017).
262.

DHS issued the DHS Memorandum rescinding DACA on September 5, 2017, in

direct response to the threats of the State of Texas and the other ten states, fulfilling the demand
of a State marked with a history of racial discrimination.
President Trump Backtracks on His Promise and Rescinds DACA
263.

Despite its repeated assurances, the federal government announced that the DACA

program will be rescinded and that the government will immediately cease accepting applications
under DACA. The federal government will process pending applications on a case-by-case basis.
See Ex. 74 (DHS, Memorandum Rescinding DACA, September 5, 2017). The federal government
will only issue renewals for recipients whose permits expire before March 5, 2018, provided they
apply for renewal by October 5, 2018. Id. The DHS Memorandum further specifies that the
government will not approve any new or pending applications for advanced parole. Id.
264.

In issuing the DHS Memorandum rescinding DACA, the federal government

misleadingly claimed that DACA was unconstitutional, despite no court making that
determination. See Ex. 75 (DOJ, Attorney General Sessions Remarks on DACA, September 5,
2017).
265.

As a result of the DHS Memorandum, after the expiration of DACA grantees’

terms, the grantees will immediately face the risk of losing their employment, as well as vital
benefits, such as social security cards, driver licenses, financial aid, disability and health benefits,
among others. They also may lose their homes and communities if the program is allowed to
50

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 51 of 58 PageID #: 51

expire: an internal White House memo reported on by CNN stated that DHS now is urging DACA
recipients “to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States” when their DACA
terms end. Ex. 88 (Tal Kopan & Jim Acosta, Admin Memo: DACA recipients should prepare for
departure from the United States, CNN, Sept. 5, 2017).
266.

President Trump also has taken affirmative steps to reduce the privacy protections

applicable to DACA data. In January 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing
all agencies, including DHS, to “ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not
United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act
regarding personally identifiable information.” Ex. 76 (Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Jan. 25, 2017). DHS has confirmed that its new privacy
policy, adopted in response to the Executive Order, “permits the sharing of information about
immigrants and non-immigrants with federal, state, and local law enforcement.” Ex. 51 (DHS,
Privacy Policy 2017-01 Questions & Answers, Apr. 27, 2017).
267.

The DHS Memorandum provides no assurance to DACA grantees, or direction to

USCIS and ICE, that information contained in DACA applications or renewal requests cannot be
used for the purpose of future immigration enforcement proceedings.
268.

To the contrary, DHS posted public guidance about the impact of the rescission on

the same day that the DHS Memorandum was issued, expressly declining to give concrete
assurances about how it would use the information provided by DACA applicants. DHS states that
although it generally will not “proactively” use information obtained through DACA for
enforcement, it reserves the right to change that policy “at any time without notice” and that the
policy “may not be relied upon” by any party. Ex. 89 (DHS, Frequently Asked Questions:
Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Sept. 5, 2017). DACA grantees thus
immediately face the risk that information they provided to the federal government could be used
against them at any time, without notice, for purposes of immigration enforcement, including
detention or deportation.

51

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 52 of 58 PageID #: 52

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fifth Amendment – Equal Protection)
269.

The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of

the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
270.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government

from denying equal protection of the laws.
271.

The DHS Memorandum—together with the President’s numerous statements about

his intentions towards Mexicans, who comprise the largest population of DACA grantees—target
individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their national origin, without lawful justification.
272.

The DHS Memorandum was motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory motive

and/or a desire to harm a particular group.
273.

The discriminatory terms and application of the DHS Memorandum cannot be

sufficiently justified by federal interests.
274.

Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection

guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
275.

Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fifth Amendment – Due Process – Information Use)

276.

The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each

of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
277.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that immigration

enforcement actions taken by the federal government be fundamentally fair.
278.

Given the federal government’s representations about the allowable uses of

information provided by DACA applicants, a refusal to prohibit the use of information contained
in DACA applications and renewal requests for purposes of immigration enforcement, including
identifying, apprehending, detaining, or deporting non-citizens, is fundamentally unfair.

52

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 53 of 58 PageID #: 53

279.

Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the due process guarantee

of the Fifth Amendment.
280.

Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Administrative Procedure Act – Substantively Arbitrary and Capricious,
Abuse of Discretion, Contrary to Constitution or Statute)
281.

The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each

of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
282.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), prohibits federal

agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute. In implementing the
DHS Memorandum and rescinding DACA with minimal formal guidance, federal agencies have
taken unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
283.

In implementing the DHS Memorandum, federal agencies have acted arbitrarily

and capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have abused their discretion, in
violation of the APA.
284.

Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States’ residents.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Administrative Procedure Act – Procedurally Arbitrary and Capricious,
Notice and Comment)
285.

The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each

of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
286.

The APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 706(2)(D), requires that federal agencies conduct

formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights.
287.

DHS is an “agency” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).

288.

The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are “rules”

under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).

53

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 54 of 58 PageID #: 54

289.

In implementing the DHS Memorandum, federal agencies have changed the

substantive criteria by which individuals DACA grantees work, live, attend school, obtain credit,
and travel in the United States. Federal agencies did not follow the procedures required by the
APA before taking action impacting these substantive rights.
290.

With exceptions that are not applicable here, agency rules must go through

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. § 553.
291.

The Defendants promulgated and relied upon these rules without authority and

without notice-and-comment rulemaking in violation of the APA.
292.

The States will be impacted because they have not had the opportunity to

comment on the rescission of DACA.
293.

Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Regulatory Flexibility Act – Failure to Issue Regulatory Flexibility Analyses)
294.

The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each

of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
295.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 (“RFA”), requires federal

agencies to analyze the impact of rules they promulgate on small entities and publish initial and
final versions of those analyses for public comment. 5 U.S.C. §§ 603-604.
296.

“Small entities” for purposes of the RFA includes small businesses, small

nonprofits, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
297.

The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are “rules”

under the RFA. 5 U.S.C. § 601(2).
298.

The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are likely to

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. §
602(a)(1).
299.

Defendants have not issued the required analyses of DHS’s new rules.

54

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 55 of 58 PageID #: 55

300.

Defendants’ failure to issue the initial and final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

violates the RFA and is unlawful.
301.

Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

302.

Wherefore, the States pray that the Court:
a.

Declare that the DHS Memorandum rescinding the DACA program is
unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United
States;

b.

Declare that the actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS
Memorandum rescinding the DACA program are procedurally unlawful
under the APA;

c.

Declare that the actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS
Memorandum rescinding the DACA program are substantively unlawful
under the APA;

d.

Declare that the actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS
Memorandum rescinding the DACA program are unlawful under the RFA;

e.

Enjoin Defendants from rescinding the DACA program, pending further
orders from this Court;

f.

Enjoin Defendants from using information obtained in any DACA
application or renewal request to identify, apprehend, detain, or deport any
DACA applicant or member of any DACA applicant’s family, or take any
action against a DACA applicant’s current or former employer; and

g.

Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

DATED: September 6, 2017
55

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 56 of 58 PageID #: 56

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: /s Lourdes M. Rosado
Lourdes M. Rosado, Bureau Chief
Sania Khan, Assistant Attorney General
Diane Lucas, Assistant Attorney General
Ajay Saini, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Bureau
Office of the New York State Attorney
General
120 Broadway, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10271
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
BOB FERGUSON
Attorney General of the State Washington

MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
By:

By:

/s Jonathan B. Miller
Jonathan B. Miller (Bar No. JM3508)
Genevieve C. Nadeau*
Abigail B. Taylor*
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]

GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General of the State of Connecticut
By:

/s/ Robert W Ferguson
Robert W. Ferguson,* WSBA #26004
Attorney General
Colleen M. Melody,* WSBA #42275
Civil Rights Unit Chief
Marsha Chien,* WSBA #47020
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]

KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General for the District of Columbia

/s Mark K. Kohler
Mark F. Kohler*
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

By:

56

/s Robyn R. Bender
Robyn R. Bender*
Deputy Attorney General
Public Advocacy Division
441 4th Street, NW
Suite 650 North

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 57 of 58 PageID #: 57

Washington, DC 20001
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
DOUGLAS S. CHIN
Attorney General of the State of Hawaii
By:

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the State of Illinois
By:

/s Donna Kalama
Deputy Attorney General
Donna Kalama*
State of Hawaii, Department of the
Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: [phone]

THOMAS J. MILLER
Attorney General of the State of Iowa
By:

/s Karyn L. Bass Ehler
Karyn L. Bass Ehler,*
Chief, Civil Rights Bureau
Harpreet Khera,* Deputy Bureau Chief,
Special Litigation Bureau
Anna Crane,* Assistant Attorney General
Caitlyn McEllis,* Assistant Attorney
General
Jeff VanDam,* Assistant Attorney
General
Civil Rights Bureau
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

HECTOR H. BALDERAS
Attorney General of the State of New Mexico

/s Jeffrey S. Thompson
Jeffrey S. Thompson*
Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General of Iowa
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

By:

MATTHEW DENN
Attorney General of the State of Delaware
By: s/ Matt Denn
Attorney General Matt Denn*
Delaware Department of Justice
Carvel State Building
820 N. French St.
Wilmington, DE 19801

/s Tania Maestas
Tania Maestas,*
Deputy Attorney General
Ari Biernoff,*
Assistant Attorney General
Jennie Lusk,*
Assistant Attorney General
New Mexico Office of the Attorney
General
408 Galisteo St.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

PETER KILMARTIN
Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island
By: /s Peter Kilmartin
Peter Kilmartin*
RI Office of the Attorney General
150 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903

57

Case 1:17-cv-05228 Document 1 Filed 09/06/17 Page 58 of 58 PageID #: 58

JOSH STEIN
Attorney General of the State of North Carolina ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General of the State of Oregon
By: /s Sripriya Narasimhan
By: /s Brian De Haan
Sripriya Narasimhan*
Brian De Haan* #4565396
North Carolina Department of Justice
Assistant Attorney General
114 W. Edenton Street
Trial Attorney
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
JOSH SHAPIRO
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
Attorney General of Commonwealth of
Attorney General of the State of Vermont
Pennsylvania
By: /s Benjamin D. Battles
By: /s Jonathan Scott Goldman
Benjamin D. Battles,* Solicitor General
Jonathan Scott Goldman,*
Julio A. Thompson,* Assistant Attorney
Executive Deputy Attorney General,
General, Civil Rights Unit
Civil Law Division
Office of the Vermont Attorney General
Michael J. Fischer,*
109 State Street
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Impact
Montpelier, Vermont 05609
Litigation Section
[e-mail]
Office of Attorney General
Tel. [phone]
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Fax [phone]
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tel. [phone]
MARK R. HERRING
Attorney General of the State of Virginia
By: /s Matthew R. McGuire
Matthew R. McGuire,*
Acting Deputy Solicitor General
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, VA 23219

*Pro hac vice motions will be forthcoming.

58