Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Defendants.
Defendants.
memorandum on the grounds (1) that Mr. Wolf was not lawfully
serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and therefore
did not have authority to issue the memorandum; and (2) that
the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA"). The court directed the
1 Plaintiff in the Batalla Vidal case are individual DACA recipients. Plain-
tiffss in the New York case are 16 states and the District of Columbia.
1
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 2 of 31 PagelD #: 12659
For the following reasons, the court holds that Mr. Wolf was not
lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under
the Homeland Security Act (“HSA") when he issued the July 28,
2020 memorandum. Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment
2
For the sake of convenience, references to the docket ("Dkt.") cite to the
docket in the Batalla Vidal matter. References to the docket in the New
York matter are labelled as "States Dkt.".
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 3 of 31 PagelD #: 12660
court's decision with regard to the HSA. (See States' Mem. at 15,
n. 9.)
I. BACKGROUND
The court assumes familiarity with the DACA program, the re-
scission of which it enjoined, on APA grounds, in an earlier phase
of this litigation in February 2018. See 291 F. Supp. 3d 260
af-
(E.D.N.Y. 2018). The Supreme Court reviewed that order and
firmed its reasoning under the APA, along with similar decisions
of other district courts, in Dep't of Homeland Security v. Regents of
the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020). the wake of the
In
Regentsdecision, Mr. Wolf suspended portions of the DACA pro-
renew their status under the program annually rather than every
two years. (See Wolf Mem. at 1-2, 5.)
The question before the court is whether Mr. Wolf was lawfully
serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security when he issued
the Wolf Memorandum, or if any subsequent action taken cured
its alleged deficiencies. There are five agency actions primarily
3
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 4 of 31 PagelD #: 12661
A.
"February Delegation" of February 15, 2019
According to the HSA and FVRA, when the office of Secretary of
Homeland Security is vacant, an Acting Secretary is designated
via an order of succession that begins with the Deputy Secretary
of Homeland Security, followed by the Under Secretary for Man-
agement. See 6 U.S.C. §
113(a)(1)(A), (F); 5 U.S.C. §
3
See, e.g. Casa de Maryland, Inc. Wolf, F. Supp. 3d 20-cv-2119,
of v. -- --,
2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) (challenging DHS rules that
overhaul the criteria for work authorizations for asylum applications); Im-
migrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL 5798269 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) (challenging DHS rule that substantially raised fees
for various immigration status and benefit applications); Nw. Immigrant
Rights Project v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 19-cv-
3283, 2020 WL 5995206, at *18 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020) (challenging the
same as Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr.); see also New York v. Wolf, 20-cv-1127,
2020 WL 6047817 at *1, n. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020) (“there is some
1
doubt whether Wolf was then (and is now) lawfully exercising the author-
ity of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security").
4
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 5 of 31 PagelD #: 12662
tary in the event that the office of the Secretary became vacant,
depending on the circumstances that led to the vacancy. The first
track was for vacancies caused by the Secretary's death, resigna-
tion, or inability to perform the functions of the office. In that
case, was set by Executive Order 13753 (“E.O.
succession
13753") as follows: (1) the Deputy Secretary; (2) the Under Sec-
retary for Management; (3) the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA"); and (4) the Director
of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
14-15. The second track applied when the Sec-
¶¶
("CISA").“ (Id.
)
retary was unavailable to act during a disaster or catastrophic
was vacant. (56.1 Resp. 20.) Claire Grady was serving as the
I
Under Secretary for Management and would have been next in
the line of succession. However, on April 7 at 6:02 pm, President
4
The text of E.O. 13753 refers to the "Under Secretary for National Pro-
tection and Programs," which is the predecessor office to the Director of
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (“CISA"). (See 56.1 Resp.
I
16.)
5
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page
6 of 31 PagelD #: 12663
5
The Government maintains that the April Delegation changed the order
of succession in all cases. The court disagrees, for reasons discussed below.
6
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 7 of 31 PagelD #: 12664
C. Mr.
“November Delegation" of November 8, 2019 and
McAleenan's Resignation
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held in Regents that DHS's
rescission of the DACA program via a September 2017 memoran-
7
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 8 of 31 PagelD #: 12665
8
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 9 of 31 PagelD #: 12666
E.
Gaynor Order and Wolf Ratification of September
2020
9
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 10 of 31 PagelD #: 12667
DHS contends that Mr. Wolf was lawfully serving as Acting Sec-
retary when he issued the Wolf Memorandum in July 2020. (See
Gov't Reply at 16.) In the alternative, it argues that any deficiency
at the time was subsequently cured by the Gaynor Order and the
Wolf Ratification. (See Id. at 16.)6
7When quoting cases, and unless otherwise noted, all citations and quota-
tion marks are omitted and all alterations are adopted.
10
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 11 of 31 PagelD #: 12668
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Relevant Statutes
1.
Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA)
Stat.
151, 112 2681(1998); NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929,
936 (2017). As the Supreme Court has explained, relying largely
temporarily fill vacant offices." ייId. at 935; see also Amicus Br. of
11
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 12 of 31 PagelD #: 12669
to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties
of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time
limitations of section 3346." 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a). Alternatively,
the "President (and only the President)" somebody
may appoint
other than the “first assistant" provided that person is already
serving in a PAS office, or if that person had held a position of
the GS-15 pay rate, or higher, for at least 90 days within the pre-
vious year. 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(2), (3). In turn, Section 3346
provides that, other than for vacancies caused by sickness, "the
§ 3348(d).
2. Homeland Security Act (HSA)
8
"a person may not serve as an acting officer for an office under
Notably,
334 (b)(1)(B).
Senate for appointment to such office." 5 U.S.C.
5 §
12
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 13 of 31 PagelD #: 12670
(g) Vacancies
13
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 14 of 31 PagelD #: 12671
See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub.
L. No. 114-328, § 1903(a), 130 Stat. 2001 (Dec. 23, 2016).
B. Application
1.
FVRA
The court finds persuasive the reasoning of Casa de Maryland,
Inc. v. Wolf, 3d
Md. Sept.
--
F.Supp. --, 20-cv-2119, 2020 WL 5500165 (D.
cause Mr. Wolf was designated Acting Secretary under the HSA
and not the FVRA, the FVRA's 210-day limitation, and its enforce-
14
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 15 of 31 PagelD #: 12672
son who is not acting under section 3345, 3346, or 3347 shall .
..
have no force or effect."
§
FVRA purposes. See 6 U.S.C. 113(g). Although the HSA ex-
pressly invokes the FVRA to designate the Deputy Secretary and
Under Secretary for Management as "first assistants," it also ex-
pressly grants the Secretary the power, should the "first assistant"
offices both be vacant, to designate the "further order of succes-
sion" notwithstanding the FVRA. See S.W. Gen., 137 S.Ct. at 939
(explaining that the "ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in
Mr. Wolf assumed the Acting Secretary role because he was Un-
der Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans and, under the
November Delegation,
fourth in line to assume the role behind
the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and
the CBP Commissioner, which were all vacant at the time. There-
fore, reading the statutes together, Mr. Wolf was designated
15
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 16 of 31 PagelD #: 12673
Mr. Wolf did not assume the Acting Secretary role under Section
3345, Sections 3346 and 3348 do not apply to him. See Casa de
Maryland,2020 WL 5500165 at *18; Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr.,
2020 WL 5798269 at *10-11.9
I
saying of PAS vacancies: "Tm in no hurry hav 'acting' [sic]. And
my
e
I
'actings' are doing really great. sor of like 'acting.' It gives me more flex-
(Id. ¶ t
the time limitations of the FVRA, it could be
ibility." 11.) Without
possible to install a series of acting officers in order to avoid constitution-
ally required Senate approval.
16
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 17 of 31 PagelD #: 12674
For these reasons, the court finds that Mr. Wolf was not elevated
to the role of Acting Secretary under the FVRA, and therefore,
the FVRA's limitations and enforcement provisions do not apply
to him.
2. HSA
Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to
designate a further order succession for Acting Secretaries be-
yond the two statutory “first assistants." Secretary Nielsen
exercised that in the February and April Delegations. DHS
power
failed to follow the order of succession as it was lawfully desig-
nated. Therefore, the actions taken by purported Acting
Secretaries, who were not properly in their roles according to the
17
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 18 of 31 PagelD #: 12675
I
am una-
vailable to act during a disaster or emergency.
(See E.O. 13753 of Dec. 9, 2016 (Dkt. 310-3) at ECF p. 48; GAO
Decision at ECF pp. 170-172.) Based on a straightforward appli-
cation of E.O. 13753, Director Krebs should have assumed the
role as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. Instead, Mr.
McAleenan purported to be Acting Secretary, although he pos-
sessed
no statutory authority to do so. (See 56.1 Resp. ¶ 30.)
Because Mr. McAleenan had no authority, the November Delega-
18
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 19 of 31 PagelD #: 12676
19
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 20 of 31 PagelD #: 12677
Annex A applied, which was “in the event [the Secretary is] un-
available to act during a disaster or catastrophic emergency."
(Revision 08.5 at ECF p. 64.) The court credits the text of the law
20
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 21 of 31 PagelD #: 12678
The Gaynor Order did not make Mr. Wolf the lawful Acting Sec-
21
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 22 of 31 PagelD #: 12679
A.
Legal Standard
12The Fourth Circuit issued its mandate following the Regents decision on
June 30, 2020 and the Wolf Memorandum was issued on July 28, 2020.
22
23 of
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 31 PagelD #: 12680
member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each
class member makes
similar legal arguments to prove the defend-
ant's liability." Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010).
Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
1.
Numerosity
23
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 24 of 31 PagelD #: 12681
therefore met. See Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley
& Co., 772 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Numerosity is
pre-
sumed for classes larger than forty members.").
F.R.D. 279, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Here, the common issues for
the Class are whether Mr. Wolf and Mr. McAleenan lawfully
served as Acting Secretaries of DHS at the relevant times and
24
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 25 of 31 PagelD #: 12682
183.) The common issues for the Subclass are whether the mem-
bers are entitled to have their applications adjudicated in
accordance with the Napolitano Memorandum and whether
DHS's failure to do so, as well as its failure to give notice that it
cause the claims of the named plaintiffs "share the same essential
characteristics,"
Dial Corp. v. News Corp., 314 F.R.D. 108, 113
(S.D.N.Y. 2015), with those of the proposed members of each
class. "[W]hen each class member's claim arises from the
same
course of events, and each class member makes similar legal ar-
guments to prove the defendant's liability," typicality is satisfied.
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997).
3. Adequacy
25
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 26 of 31 PagelD #: 12683
The proposed classes, all subject to the Wolf and Edlow Memo-
randa, face the same challenges described by the named
plaintiffs. Further,
the remedies that Plaintiffs seek would pro-
vide the same relief to each member of the proposed classes.
Plaintiffs assert they "are highly motivated to pursue this action
vigorously to protect their interests and those of other class mem-
bers," and have no conflicts of interest with the proposed classes.
(See Class Cert. Mem. at 19.) They affirm that they have taken
4.
Ascertainability
26
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 27 of 31 PagelD #: 12684
5.
Rule 23(b)
C. Government's Objections to
Class Certification
27
28 of
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 31 PagelD #: 12685
be eligible
for DACA according to the same criteria out-
or will
lined in the Napolitano Memorandum, including individuals
who:
28
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 29 of 31 PagelD #: 12686
Reply at 8.)
Third, the Government argues that because the Class includes in-
dividuals who be eligible for
may DACA but have not yet applied
(and never do so), certification should be defeated on stand-
may
ing grounds. (Class Cert. Opp. at 9.) Although it is true that a
"class must be defined in such a that anyone within it
..
.
way
would have standing," it is also true that
"[a]n injury-in-fact may
simply be the fear or anxiety of future harm." Denney v. Deutsche
Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir. 2006). As long as the Wolf
Memorandum remains in effect, Class members who are other-
wise eligible for DACA but have not yet applied share the same
29
30 of
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 31 PagelD #: 12687
D. Certification Order
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is GRANTED. The court,
having considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
the declarations submitted in support thereof, orders as follows:
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), the court CERTIFIES the fol-
classes:
lowing
2)
A “Pending Applications Subclass" (for the claims
2020
challenging the application of the
Wolf
Memorandum and its implementing guidance, including
the Edlow Memorandum, to certain DACA applications):
30
Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS Document 342 Filed 11/14/20 Page 31 of 31 PagelD #: 12688
V.
CONCLUSION
SO ORDERED.
Nicholas G. Garaufi
/s/
NICHOLAS G.
s
GARAUFIS
United States District Judge
31