State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 14

First AMENDED Complaint against All Defendants filed by State of South Dakota, State of Louisiana, State of Alabama, C.L. "Butch" Otter, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, Patrick L. McCrory, State of Kansas, State of Georgia, State of Nebraska, State of Utah, State of Wisconsin, Paul R. LePage, State of Montana, State of Idaho, Phil Bryant, State of South Carolina, State of Indiana, State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of Florida, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, Bill Schuette.(D'Andrea, Arthur)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

STATE OF TEXAS;
STATE OF ALABAMA;
STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF ARKANSAS;
STATE OF FLORIDA;
STATE OF GEORGIA;
STATE OF IDAHO;
STATE OF INDIANA;
STATE OF KANSAS;
STATE OF LOUISIANA;
STATE OF MONTANA;
STATE OF NEBRASKA;
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF OHIO;
STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
STATE OF UTAH;
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
STATE OF WISCONSIN;

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-254

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL SCHUETTE, People of
Michigan;

)
)
)
GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT, State of Mississippi;
)
)
GOVERNOR PAUL R. LEPAGE, State of Maine;
)
)
GOVERNOR PATRICK L. MCCRORY, State of North
)
Carolina; and
)
)
GOVERNOR C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, State of Idaho,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
)
)
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of
)
Homeland Security;
)
)
R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE, Commissioner of U.S. Customs
)
and Border Protection;
)
)
RONALD D. VITIELLO, Deputy Chief of U.S. Border
)
Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
)
)
THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI, Acting Director of U.S.
)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
)
)
)
LEÓN RODRÍGUEZ, Director of U.S. Citizenship and
)
Immigration Services,
)
Defendants. )
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1.

The State of Texas, the State of Alabama, the State of Arizona, the

State of Arkansas, the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, the State of Idaho, the
State of Indiana, the State of Kansas, the State of Louisiana, the State of Montana,
the State of Nebraska, the State of North Dakota, the State of Ohio, the State of

2

Oklahoma, the State of South Carolina, the State of South Dakota, the State of
Utah, the State of West Virginia, the State of Wisconsin, and Attorney General Bill
Schuette of Michigan, Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi, Governor Paul R.
LePage of Maine, Governor Patrick L. McCrory of North Carolina, and Governor
C.L. “Butch” Otter of Idaho (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiff States”) seek
declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States and the above-named
federal officials (collectively, “the Defendants”) for their violations of the Take Care
Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, cl. 5, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
2.

This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law,

presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.
3.

On November 20, 2014, the President of the United States announced

that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of
the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
4.

The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally

rewrote the law: “What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to
change the law.”
5.

In accordance with the President’s unilateral exercise of lawmaking,

his Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a directive
that purports to legalize the presence of approximately 40% of the known
undocumented-immigrant population, and affords them legal rights and benefits.
See Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

3

with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with
Respect to Certain Individuals Whose Parents are U.S. Citizens or Permanent
Residents (Nov. 20, 2014) (“DHS Directive”) (attached as Ex. A).
6.

That unilateral suspension of the Nation’s immigration laws is

unlawful. Only this Court’s immediate intervention can protect the Plaintiffs from
dramatic and irreparable injuries.
I. THE PARTIES
7.

Plaintiffs are the State of Texas, the State of Alabama, the State of

Arizona, the State of Arkansas, the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, the State
of Idaho, the State of Indiana, the State of Kansas, the State of Louisiana, the State
of Montana, the State of Nebraska, the State of North Dakota, the State of Ohio, the
State of Oklahoma, the State of South Carolina, the State of South Dakota, the
State of Utah, the State of West Virginia, the State of Wisconsin, the Attorney
General of Michigan, and the Governors of Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina, and
Idaho.
8.

Defendant United States of America is sued under the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”). See 5 U.S.C. § 703 (“[T]he action for judicial review may be
brought against the United States.”).
9.

Defendant Jeh Johnson is the Secretary of DHS. Johnson and DHS

are responsible for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). Johnson authored the DHS Directive.

4

10.

Defendant R. Gil Kerlikowske is the Commissioner of CBP. Defendant

Kerlikowske shares responsibility for implementing the DHS Directive.

And

Kerlikowske is Defendant Vitiello’s supervisor.
11.

Defendant Ronald D. Vitiello is the Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol.

Vitiello authored a May 30, 2014, memorandum entitled “Unaccompanied Alien
Children Transfer Process Bottleneck” (“Vitiello Memorandum”), which recognizes
that Defendants’ abandonment of the federal immigration laws caused and is
continuing to cause crises in the Plaintiff States.
12.

Defendant Thomas S. Winkowski is the Acting Director for ICE. ICE

administers a formal program for allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for
deferred action and to appeal for reconsideration if deferred action is denied.
13.

Defendant León Rodríguez is the Director of USCIS. Rodríguez and

USCIS administer the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program.
President Obama announced the DACA program on June 12, 2012, to allow
undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States in violation of the Nation’s
immigration laws. And USCIS is the principal agency charged with implementing
the DHS Directive.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3, cl. 5, and the
APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346

because this is a civil action or claim against the United States. Finally, the Court

5

has jurisdiction to compel an officer or employee of the above-named federal
agencies to perform his or her duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
15.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the

State of Texas is a resident of this judicial district, and a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
16.

This Court is authorized to award the requested declaratory and

injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, the
APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A.

The DREAM Act

17.

On March 26, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin and Representative

Howard Berman introduced the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate and House,
respectively.

See DREAM Act of 2009, S. 729 (111th Cong.) (2009); American

Dream Act, H.R. 1751 (111th Cong.) (2009).

Both bills would have allowed

undocumented immigrants to apply for conditional permanent resident status if,
among other things, (a) they entered the United States before their 16th birthdays,
and (b) they had been in the United States continuously for five years.
18.

The President repeatedly and forcefully urged Congress to pass the

DREAM Act.
19.

And the President consistently insisted that he could not achieve the

goals of the DREAM Act on his own. He said, for instance:

6

•

“Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. . . .
Anybody who tells you . . . that I can wave a magic wand and make it
happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (May 5,
2010)

•

“I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. . . .
[T]here’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to
execute the law. . . . I can’t just make the laws up by myself.” (Oct. 25,
2010)

•

In response to a question about whether he could stop deportation of
undocumented students with an executive order:

“Well, first of all,

temporary protective status historically has been used for special
circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing
persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in
their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it
would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came
here primarily . . . for economic opportunity. With respect to the notion
that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not
the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has
passed. . . . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very
clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for
me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates

7

would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

(Mar. 28,

2011) (emphasis added)
•

“I can’t solve this problem by myself. . . . We’re going to have to change the
laws in Congress.” (Apr. 20, 2011)

•

“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the
law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is
hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of
changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (Apr. 29, 2011)

•

“And sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could
just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a
democracy works.” (May 10, 2011)

•

“[B]elieve me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. . . .
But that’s not how . . . our system works. . . . That’s not how our
Constitution is written.” (July 25, 2011)

•

“Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. . . . We are doing everything
we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on
the books that I have to enforce.” (Sept. 28, 2011)

20.

Neither congressional chamber passed the DREAM Act.

B.

DACA

21.

The President then asked the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal

Counsel (“OLC”) whether he could effectuate the goals of the un-enacted DREAM
Act by executive fiat. OLC said “yes,” with certain conditions. In particular, OLC
advised the President that he could use the concept of “deferred action for childhood
8

arrivals,” or “DACA,” to stop deporting individuals who (a) entered the United
States before their 16th birthdays, and (b) had been in the United States
continuously for five years.

See Memorandum Opinion for the Secretary of

Homeland Security, from Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority
to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and
to Defer Removal of Others at 18 n.8 (Nov. 19, 2014) (“OLC Memo”) (attached as Ex.
B) (noting that OLC orally advised the President “[b]efore DACA was announced” in
2012). OLC further advised, however, that “it was critical that, like past policies
that made deferred action available to certain classes of aliens, the DACA program
require immigration officials to evaluate each application for deferred action on a
case-by-case basis, rather than granting deferred action automatically to all
applicants who satisfied the threshold eligibility criteria.” Ibid.
22.

Notwithstanding his repeated insistence that he could not stretch his

executive powers any further, the President announced his unilateral creation of
the DACA program on June 15, 2012.
23.
Nation’s

At the President’s direction, the DHS Secretary then suspended the
immigration

immigrants.

laws

for

approximately

1.7

million

undocumented

See Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect
to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children (June 15, 2012) (“DACA
Memo”) (attached as Ex. C).

9

24.

The President and his DHS Secretary ordered federal immigration

officials to extend “deferred action” to undocumented immigrants who (a) entered
the United States before their 16th birthdays, and (b) had been in the United States
continuously for five years.
25.

Although OLC had cautioned the President that it was “critical” to

DACA’s legality that the Administration evaluate every application on a case-bycase basis, the President and DHS ignored that advice. According to the latest
figures available, the Administration granted deferred action to 99.5-99.8% of
DACA applicants.
C.

Nava-Martinez

26.

The Executive Branch did not stop at dispensing with the Nation’s

immigration laws. Rather, as this Court already has found, the Administration
adopted a policy that encouraged international child smuggling across the TexasMexico border. See Order, United States v. Nava-Martinez, No. 1:13-cr-00441, at 2
(S.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2013) (“Nava-Martinez Order”).
27.

The defendant in Nava-Martinez, an admitted human trafficker, was

caught attempting to smuggle a ten-year-old El Salvadorean girl into the United
States. Id. at 1.
28.

The Court noted that this was “the fourth case with the same factual

situation this Court has had in as many weeks.” Id. at 3. Although the human
traffickers were apprehended in each case, “the DHS completed the criminal
conspiracy . . . by delivering the minors to the custody of the parent.” Ibid.

10

29.

This was done pursuant to DHS’s “apparent policy . . . of completing

the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the
United States.” Id. at 2. As this Court observed, “[t]his DHS policy is a dangerous
course of action.” Ibid. Under the policy, “instead of enforcing the laws of the
United States, the Government [takes] direct steps to help the individuals who
violated it.” Id. at 3.
30.

Moreover, this Court found that DHS’s policy promotes human

trafficking, which in turn “help[s] fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real
danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.” Id. at 6. The Court explained
that citizens of the United States bear the economic brunt of this policy, because
DHS “funds these evil ventures with their tax dollars.” Id. at 8. In addition, the
policy harms the citizens of each country that suffers from the “nefarious activities
of the cartels.” Ibid.
D.

The Defendants Cause a Humanitarian Crisis

31.

The Defendants’ policies (including DACA and the policy described in

Nava-Martinez) have had and continue to have dire consequences in the Plaintiff
States. In the summer of 2014, an enormous wave of undocumented immigrants
surged across the Texas-Mexico border, creating what President Obama described
as a “humanitarian crisis.”

Nick Miroff & Joshua Partlow, Central American

Migrants Overwhelm Border Patrol Station in Texas, WASH. POST (Jun. 12, 2014).
32.

As many as 90,000 undocumented children are expected to be detained

this year, and as many as 140,000 may be detained in 2015.

Brett LoGiurato,

There’s a Staggering Humanitarian Crisis on the US Border, and It’s Only Going to
11

Get Worse, BUS. INSIDER (Jun. 16, 2014).

By comparison, only 6,000 to 7,500

children were detained between 2008 and 2011, under 14,000 were detained in
2012, and only 24,000 were detained in 2013. Alicia A. Caldwell, Border Patrol
Resources Stretched Thin As Children Illegally Enter U.S. Alone, ASSOCIATED PRESS
(Jun. 5, 2014).
33.

Law enforcement officers reported “picking up children as young as 4

without their parents and other children with Hello Kitty backpacks, cellphones
and the telephone numbers of U.S. relatives on note cards.” Miroff & Partlow,
supra.
34.

But the humanitarian crisis is by no means limited to unaccompanied

children. There is also “an unprecedented surge of families crossing illegally into
the U.S.” Cindy Carcamo, Rumors of U.S. Haven for Families Spur Rise in Illegal
Immigration, L.A. TIMES (June 6, 2014). While immigration officials do not have an
official count of such families, they acknowledge that “the numbers appear to be
substantial.” Ibid.
35.

This wave of immigration has been concentrated in the Rio Grande

Valley of South Texas. Miroff & Partlow, supra. “Every day, hundreds of Central
American migrants, in groups as large as 250 people, are wading across the muddy
Rio Grande.” Ibid.
36.

The crisis has imposed enormous law enforcement costs on the

Plaintiff States. For example, the Texas Department of Public Safety estimated
that it was spending $1.3 million a week on troopers and resources to deal with the

12

immigration surge; in addition, Governor Perry deployed 1,000 National Guard
troops to the border at a cost of $38 million.
37.

This crisis was caused by the immigration policies of the federal

government, including the policy that this Court has already held to be unlawful.
As Defendant Vitiello explained in his May 30th memorandum, “[i]f the U.S.
government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting
to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of
recidivism and first-time illicit entries.”

And the Obama Administration

acknowledges that there is a “growing perception minors are crossing the border
because they feel they will not be deported by the administration.”

LoGiurato,

supra. Indeed, a research report commissioned by DHS revealed that “[w]ord had
spread in Central America about a ‘lack of consequences’ for illegal entry” and that
“[s]mugglers were exploiting the system.” Susan Carroll, Report Warned of Child
Migrant Crisis, HOUSTON CHRON. (Jun. 17, 2014).
38.

The President himself predicted this outcome. On July 1, 2010, he

explained that it would be “both unwise and unfair” to “ignore the laws on the books
and put an end to deportation” because it “would suggest to those thinking about
coming here illegally that there will be no repercussion for such a decision.” That in
turn “could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.”

As the President

concluded, “no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million
who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

13

39.

The Defendants, however, have contributed to the surge of illegal

immigration by refusing to enforce the laws on the books. On average, only 1,600
unaccompanied children are removed each year; in 2013, there were over 20,000
detentions of unaccompanied children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador,
but only 496 unaccompanied children from those countries were repatriated.
Carroll, supra. And the total number of undocumented children deported by the
Obama Administration in 2013 was only 1,669 — an 80 percent reduction from
2008.

Brian Bennett, Deportation Data Won’t Dispel Rumors Drawing Migrant

Minors to U.S., L.A. TIMES (July 5, 2014).
40.

Similarly, adults with children who are detained at the border are

routinely released and allowed to travel within the United States. Carcamo, supra.
And while they may be instructed to show up for a follow-up appointment, “ICE
officials said they couldn’t guarantee that they would pursue all cases in which
immigrants do not show up for follow-up appointments.”

Ibid.

Tellingly, the

immigrants arrested for illegally entering the U.S. refer to ICE’s Notice to Appear
documents as “permisos,” or permits.

Byron York, On Immigrant Surge, White

House Story Falls Apart, WASH. EXAMINER (Jun. 16, 2014).
41.

Unsurprisingly, the undocumented immigrants crossing the border are

motivated primarily by the belief that they will not be deported.
government’s own analysis demonstrates as much.

The federal

When Border Patrol agents

recently questioned 230 undocumented immigrants about why they came, “the
results showed overwhelmingly that the immigrants, including those classified as

14

. . . unaccompanied children, were motivated by the belief that they would be
allowed to stay in the United States.” Ibid.
42.

Multiple reports indicate that undocumented immigrants are counting

on federal officials for help in reuniting with their friends or family in the U.S.
Hundreds of Central American migrants “turn[ ] themselves in to the Border Patrol”
on a daily basis. Miroff & Partlow, supra. One undocumented immigrant stated
that she and her group “had looked forward to being caught . . . at one point even
waving down federal helicopters . . . because of the welcoming treatment they had
assumed they would receive.” Carcamo, supra. Another planned to surrender to
Border Patrol because she had heard “that the Americans are helping Hondurans
right now,” especially women and children. Miroff & Partlow, supra. All of the 230
undocumented immigrants interviewed by Border Patrol agents for their recent
report “stated that they had family members or, to a lesser extent, friends already
living in the U.S.” York, supra.
43.

And the Defendants have conceded that their failure to enforce the

federal immigration laws has increased the flow of illegal immigration across the
Texas-Mexico border. See Vitiello Memorandum. The effects of that failure have
caused acute crises in the Plaintiff States.
E.

The President “Change[s] the Law”

44.

Between his 2012 DACA announcement and the midterm elections in

November 2014, the President repeatedly acknowledged that his non-enforcement
efforts already had reached the outer limit of his administrative powers, and that

15

any further transformation of the immigration system would have to be
accomplished by legislation. He said, for instance:
•

“[A]s the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. . . .
[U]ntil we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization
and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be
bound by the law.” (Sept. 20, 2012)

•

“We are a nation of immigrants. . . . But we’re also a nation of laws. So
what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve
done everything that I can on my own.” (Oct. 16, 2012)

•

In response to a question about the possibility of a moratorium on
deportations for non-criminals: “I’m not a king. I am the head of the
executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law.” (Jan. 30,
2013)

•

In response to the question whether he could do for “an undocumented
mother of three” what he did for DACA recipients: “I’m not a king. . . .
[W]e can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers we were
able to identify that group. . . . But to sort through all the possible cases of
everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to
do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. . . . [I]f this
was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time
ago. . . . The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I
then get an opportunity to sign and implement it.” (Jan. 30, 2013)

16

•

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The
problem is that you know I’m the president of the United States, I’m not
the emperor of the United States. . . . And what that means is that we
have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place. . . . [W]e’ve
kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can.” (Feb.
14, 2013)

•

“I think that it’s very important for us to recognize that the way to solve
this problem has to be legislative. . . . And we’ve been able to provide help
through deferred action for young people and students. . . . But this is a
problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (July 16, 2013)

•

“[M]y job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws
that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to
those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of
money for enforcement. . . . What we can do is then carve out the DREAM
Act, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans
that we should welcome. . . . But if we start broadening that, then
essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very
difficult to defend legally.

So, that’s not an option.”

(Sept. 17, 2013)

(emphasis added)
•

“[I]f in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in
Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part
of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like

17

I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the
harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same
goal.” (Nov. 25, 2013)
•

“[W]hat I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes
a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What
I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion. . . . What we’ve said is focus
on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who
engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling
DREAMers. . . . That already stretched my administrative capacity very
far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a
certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is,
Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of
officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot
ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other
laws that are on the books.” (Mar. 6, 2014) (emphasis added)

45.

Accordingly, the President repeatedly called on Congress to pass an

immigration reform bill. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed a bill that, among
other things, would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants.

See Border Security, Economic Opportunity, & Immigration

Modernization Act, S. 744 (113th Cong.) (2013). The House, on the other hand, did
not pass similar legislation.

18

46.

Before the midterm elections in November 2014, Democrats in the

Senate urged the President not to act unilaterally because it “could be so politically
damaging in their states that it would destroy their chances to hold control of the
Senate.” Michael D. Shear & Julia Preston, Obama Pushed ‘Fullest Extent’ of His
Powers on Immigration Plan, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 28, 2014). The President honored
that request.
47.

On November 20, 2014, the President announced that he would

unilaterally create legal protections for approximately 4 million undocumented
immigrants. Under the President’s plan, the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens
and legal permanent residents would receive deferred action status, as well as work
permits and tolling of their unlawful presence in the United States. The President
also expanded DACA to hundreds of thousands of additional undocumented
immigrants.
48.

The President candidly admitted that his plan was unilateral

legislation: “What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change
the law.”
49.

The President further admitted that he was changing the law because

Congress chose not to: “[W]hen members of Congress question my authority to
make our immigration system work better, I have a simple answer: Pass a bill. . . .
And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.”
50.

The President also made clear that he was “offer[ing] the following

deal”: “[I]f you’ve taken responsibility, you’ve registered, undergone a background

19

check, you’re paying taxes, you’ve been here for five years, you’ve got roots in the
community — you’re not going to be deported. . . . If you meet the criteria, you can
come out of the shadows, you can get right with the law.”
F.

The DHS Directive

51.

The President’s new policies were effectuated through Defendant

Johnson’s DHS Directive. The DHS Directive closely resembled, and purported to
“supplement[ ] and amend[ ],” the DACA Memo. See Exs. A & C.
52.

In particular, Johnson instructed USCIS “to expand DACA as follows:”

by “[r]emov[ing] the age cap” that had previously applied, by “[e]xtend[ing] DACA
renewal and work authorization to three-years [sic]” from the previous two, and by
“[a]djust[ing] the date-of-entry requirement” from June 15, 2007, to January 1,
2010. DHS Directive at 3-4.
53.

Johnson also “direct[ed] USCIS to establish a process, similar to

DACA” for extending deferred action to the parents of citizens or lawful permanent
residents. Id. at 4. In addition, the beneficiaries of deferred action are eligible to
apply for federal work authorization.
54.

The DHS Directive sets out a series of explicit criteria for who will be

eligible for this expansion of deferred action.

It requires applicants to “file the

requisite applications for deferred action” and “submit biometrics for USCIS to
conduct background checks.”

Ibid.

USCIS is instructed to “begin accepting

applications from eligible applicants no later than one hundred and eighty (180)
days” from the date of the Directive. Id. at 5. Moreover, USCIS, ICE, and CBP are
directed to consider the new deferred action criteria “for all individuals [they]
20

encounter[ ],” including individuals in their custody, and individuals whose removal
is pending. Ibid.
55.

The Defendants have made clear that the DHS Directive will operate

like the DACA program that came before it — namely, as an entitlement to relief
for virtually every applicant who meets DHS’s eligibility criteria. That is evident
from the President’s statement that the DHS Directive provides a “deal” to ensure
that eligible applicants “will not be deported”; from the DHS Directive itself, which
creates an application process and eligibility criteria in mandatory terms (like
“shall” and “must”); and from the 99.5-99.8% acceptance rate for DACA applicants.
56.

The purported legal justification for the DHS Directive is contained in

the OLC Memo.

See Ex. B.

In relevant part, the memo analyzed two DHS

proposals. The first proposal, which the Administration adopted, was the extension
of deferred action status to parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents. The second proposal, which the Administration has not yet adopted, was
the extension of deferred action status to parents of DACA recipients.

OLC

concluded that the first proposal would be a lawful exercise of enforcement
discretion, but the second would not.
57.

The OLC Memo acknowledged that there are three important

differences between the proposed programs and exercises of enforcement
discretion. Id. at 20-21. First, deferred action is not merely a “decision not to
prosecute an individual for past unlawful conduct”; instead, it is “a decision to
openly tolerate an undocumented alien’s continued presence in the United

21

States.” Id. at 20. Second, deferred action carries legal benefits beyond nonenforcement, such as the right to seek employment authorization. Ibid. Third,
class-based deferred action programs, like the ones at issue here, “do not merely
enable individual immigration officials to select deserving beneficiaries,” but
instead “set forth certain threshold eligibility criteria and then invite individuals
who satisfy these criteria to apply for deferred action status.” Ibid. In spite of all
this, OLC concluded that the programs could potentially constitute exercises of
enforcement discretion.
58.

OLC then considered whether the proposals would be lawful under

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), a seminal enforcement-discretion
case. OLC acknowledged that Chaney imposes four limitations on enforcement
discretion. First, enforcement decisions must rely on factors that are within the
agency’s expertise; second, the executive cannot effectively rewrite the laws under
the guise of enforcement discretion; third, the executive cannot adopt a general
policy that amounts to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities; and finally,
enforcement discretion generally requires case-by-case decisionmaking. OLC Memo
at 6-7.
59.

OLC concluded that the first DHS proposal, which concerned the

parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, met this test. Id. at 26-31. OLC
based that conclusion, in part, on much smaller and more targeted deferred action
programs that previous Congresses approved. In particular, OLC found probative
that Congress previously approved deferred action for victims of violence and

22

trafficking, family members of U.S. citizens killed in combat, and family members of
individuals killed in the September 11 attacks. Id. at 29-30. In OLC’s view, those
previous congressional approvals legalized DHS’s unilateral effort to create the
single largest deferred action program in our Nation’s history, permitting 4 million
undocumented immigrants to remain in the country.
60.

OLC reached the opposite conclusion with respect to the second DHS

proposal, which concerned deferred action for parents of DACA recipients.
Although OLC acknowledged that the two proposals had significant similarities, it
nevertheless rejected the second proposal as unlawful because it was not “consistent
with the congressional policies and priorities embodied in the immigration laws.”
Id. at 33.
G.

The DHS Directive Harms Plaintiffs

61.

The DHS Directive will substantially increase the number of

undocumented immigrants in the Plaintiff States.

At the most basic level, the

Directive is a promise to openly tolerate entire classes of undocumented
immigrants. In addition, the Directive offers affirmative legal inducements to stay,
such as work authorization and the tolling of unlawful presence.

White House

officials also have stated that the beneficiaries of deferred action are eligible for
Social Security and Medicare. The removal of the deportation threat, combined
with the incentives to stay, will make remaining in the United States far more
attractive for the affected classes of undocumented immigrants.

23

62.

Moreover, the DHS Directive is certain to trigger a new wave of

undocumented immigration. As explained above, DACA led directly to a flood of
immigration across the Texas-Mexico border and a “humanitarian crisis” in Texas.
The federal government itself recognized that its lax attitude toward the
immigration laws caused this wave. See Vitiello Memorandum. The DHS Directive
is a much larger step than DACA, and it will trigger a larger response.
63.

The DHS Directive will increase human trafficking in the Plaintiff

States. Such trafficking is largely controlled by the Mexican drug cartels, which are
the most significant organized crime threat to the State of Texas.

See Texas

Department of Public Safety, Texas Public Safety Threat Overview at 2, 23 (Feb.
2013). By boosting undocumented immigration, the DHS Directive will bolster the
business of the cartels and greatly exacerbate the risks and dangers imposed on
Plaintiffs by organized crime.

See Nava-Martinez Order at 6 (explaining that

human trafficking “help[s] fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger
for both citizens of this country and Mexico”).
64.

The Plaintiff States will be forced to expend substantial resources on

law enforcement, healthcare, and education.

Some of these expenditures are

required or coerced by federal law. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that
States are constitutionally obligated to provide free education to children of
undocumented immigrants. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Similarly, both
Medicare and Medicaid require provision of emergency services, regardless of

24

documented immigration status, as a condition of participation.

See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1395dd; 42 C.F.R. § 440.225.
65.

Other expenditures are required by state law. For example, Texas law

requires local governments to provide healthcare for the indigent. See Indigent
Health Care and Treatment Act, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 61.001 et seq. In
FY2014, Texas counties reported over $23 million in indigent health care
expenditures. Texas law also requires nonprofit hospitals to provide unreimbursed
care for the indigent as a condition of maintaining their nonprofit status. See TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 311.043.
66.

Other costs follow specifically from the extension of deferred action

status. For instance, federal work authorization functions as a precondition for
certain professional licenses in the Plaintiff States. See, e.g., 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§ 33.10 (requiring applicants for an alcoholic beverage license to be “legally
authorized to work in the United States”); 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 35.21 (requiring
employees of private security companies to submit application, including a copy of a
current work authorization card); TEX. RULES GOVERN. BAR ADM’N, R. II(a)(5)(d)
(making individuals who are “authorized to work lawfully in the United States”
eligible to apply for admission as licensed attorneys).
67.

Texas and other Plaintiff States also rely on Defendants’ evidence of

lawful presence for certain benefits under their respective state laws. See, e.g., TEX.
LAB. CODE § 207.043(a)(2) (extending unemployment benefits to individuals who
were “lawfully present for purposes of performing the services”); TEX. FAM. CODE

25

§ 2.005(b)(4) (allowing an “Employment Authorization Card” to be used as proof of
identity for the purposes of a marriage license application).
68.

By authorizing a large class of undocumented immigrants to work in

the United States, the DHS Directive will expose Texas to the cost of processing and
issuing additional licenses and benefits. Moreover, it will cause Texas to issue such
licenses and benefits to individuals who are not legally authorized to be in the
country (or to take on the burdensome task of attempting to figure out which
undocumented immigrants have bona fide deferred action status and which ones
benefited from the unlawful DHS Directive).
69.

If the Plaintiff States had the sovereign power to redress these

problems, they would. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 519 (2007) (citing
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982)).
But the Supreme Court has held that authority over immigration is largely lodged
in the federal government.

See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492

(2012). Accordingly, litigation against the federal government is the only way for
the States to vindicate their interests and those of their citizens.
IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
Violation Of The Take Care Clause, Art. II, § 3, Cl. 5
70.

The allegations in paragraphs 1-69 are reincorporated herein.

71.

The DHS Directive violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take

Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, cl. 5.

26

72.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the Take Care Clause is

judicially enforceable against presidential invocations of the dispensing power. See,
e.g., Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 612-13 (1838); Angelus Milling
Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945).
73.

The Take Care Clause limits the President’s power and ensures that

he will faithfully execute Congress’s laws — not rewrite them under the guise of
executive “discretion.”
74.

In this case, the President admitted that he “took an action to change

the law.” The Defendants could hardly contend otherwise because a deferred action
program with an acceptance rate that rounds to 100% is a de facto entitlement —
one that even the President and OLC previously admitted would require a change
to the law.
75.

The Defendants have rewritten several laws passed by Congress.

Congress has provided that it is illegal for undocumented immigrants to be in the
United States and has required the executive branch to remove those
individuals. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, every individual who is not present in the
United States legally “shall” be “inspected” by immigration officers; and if the
officer determines that the individual is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to
be admitted, the individual “shall be detained” for removal proceedings.

Id.

§ 1225(a)(1), (a)(3), (b)(2)(A). This imposes a mandatory duty on the executive
branch. See Crane v. Napolitano, 2013 WL 1744422, at * 8, No. 3:12-cv-03247-O
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2013) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225 imposes a mandatory duty

27

and explaining that “[t]he Supreme Court has noted that Congress’s use of the word
‘shall’ in a statute imposes a mandatory duty on an agency to act.” (citing Fed.
Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)). This mandatory duty
extends to the removal of any undocumented immigrant present in violation of
federal law, unless Congress provides a specific exception. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182,
1227(a)(1), 1229b, 1254 (setting standards for inadmissibility and categories for
deportability, along with limited statutory exceptions, such as cancellation of
removal and temporary protected status).
76.

At least for the 4 million people who will benefit from the DHS

Directive, Congress has taken several steps to curtail the reunification of
undocumented immigrants and their documented family members.

The

undocumented parent of a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident generally can
stay in the United States only by (i) waiting until their child turns 21, (ii) leaving
the country, (iii) waiting 10 more years, and then (iv) obtaining a family-preference
visa

from

a

U.S.

consulate

abroad.

See

8

U.S.C.

§§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i),

1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), 1201(a), 1255. The Defendants cannot faithfully execute the law
by directly contravening Congress’s objectives.
77.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ actions violate the Take Care Clause.
COUNT TWO

Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553
78.

The allegations in paragraphs 1-77 are reincorporated herein.

28

79.

The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency

action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.”

5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(D).
80.

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

81.

The DHS Directive is a “rule” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).

82.

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

through notice-and-comment rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. § 553.
83.

The Defendants promulgated and relied upon the DHS Directive

without authority and without notice-and-comment rulemaking.

It is therefore

unlawful.
COUNT THREE
Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706
84.

The allegations in paragraphs 1-83 are reincorporated herein.

85.

The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency

action that is “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity; [or] (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or
short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
86.

The DHS Directive purports to create legal rights for millions of

undocumented immigrants. And it does so by rewriting the immigration laws and
contradicting the priorities adopted by Congress. See, e.g., ¶¶ 75-76, supra.
87.

As such, the DHS Directive violates the aforementioned provisions in 5

U.S.C. § 706, and it is therefore unlawful.
29

V. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief from the Court:
A.

A declaratory judgment and injunction that the Defendants’ deferred
action program violates the Take Care Clause;

B.

A declaratory judgment and injunction that the Defendants’ deferred
action program is procedurally unlawful under the APA;

C.

A declaratory judgment and injunction that the Defendants’ deferred
action program is substantively unlawful under the APA; and

D.

All other relief to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves to be
entitled.

30

Respectfully submitted.
LUTHER STRANGE
Attorney General of Alabama

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

THOMAS C. HORNE
Attorney General of Arizona

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Attorney General of Arkansas

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

PAMELA JO BONDI
Attorney General of Florida

ANDREW S. OLDHAM
Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney-in-Charge
State Bar No. 24081616

SAMUEL S. OLENS
Attorney General of Georgia
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General of Idaho

Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 78711
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512-936-1700

JOSEPH C. CHAPELLE
PETER J. RUSTHOVEN
Counsel for the State of Indiana
DEREK SCHMIDT
Attorney General of Kansas
JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
Attorney General of Louisiana
TIMOTHY C. FOX
Attorney General of Montana
JON C. BRUNING
Attorney General of Nebraska
WAYNE STENEHJEM
Attorney General of North Dakota
MICHAEL DEWINE
Attorney General of Ohio
ERIC E. MURPHY
Co-counsel for the State of Ohio

31

E. SCOTT PRUITT
Attorney General of Oklahoma
ALAN WILSON
Attorney General of South Carolina
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General of South Dakota
SEAN D. REYES
Attorney General of Utah
PATRICK MORRISEY
Attorney General of West Virginia
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General of Wisconsin
BILL SCHUETTE
Attorney General for the People of
Michigan
DREW SNYDER
Counsel for the Governor of Mississippi
PAUL R. LEPAGE
Governor of Maine
ROBERT C. STEPHENS
Counsel for the Governor of North
Carolina
TOM C. PERRY
CALLY YOUNGER
Counsel for the Governor of Idaho
Dated: December 9, 2014

32