State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Background

The State plaintiffs—California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia—and the organization plaintiffs challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s 2019 Public Charge Rule. The complaints asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration statutes, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fifth Amendment. The organization plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Rule was invalid because it was issued by an unlawfully appointed agency director.

The court had previously entered a preliminary injunction covering specified states, counties, and the District of Columbia, but the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunctions issued within that circuit. The current order concerned plaintiffs’ requests to complete the administrative record and to obtain discovery on their constitutional claims. It did not decide the underlying challenges to the Rule.

Administrative-record requests

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, review of an agency’s action generally is based on the whole administrative record: the materials the agency decision-makers directly or indirectly considered. The government’s record is presumed complete, and plaintiffs must rebut that presumption with clear evidence.

The court ruled as follows:

- Policy materials: The court granted the requests for policy materials that the government did not oppose and had agreed to provide, including specified portions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Policy Manual and Adjudicator’s Field Manual. It also ordered production of any supporting statement submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Form I-944, if such document or documents exist. The court denied the requests for additional policy manuals beyond those the government had agreed to provide. - Historical article and cited materials: The court granted the request for the article titled “Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background” and materials directly cited in it. It ruled that the government did not have to provide sources not directly cited in the article or an entire book unless the book was not publicly available. - Inter-agency communications: The court found that plaintiffs had shown clear evidence that communications from other agencies providing comments to the Department of Homeland Security about the Rule may have been considered but omitted from the record. It granted the request to complete the record with inter-agency communications submitted to the Department and under its control, relating to the Rule, so long as they did not involve the mental processes of individual agency members. The court did not require production of every communication broadly related to the Rule. - White House communications: The court granted the request as to White House communications in the Department of Homeland Security’s possession that met the same criteria. The order did not direct the White House itself to produce documents. - Public comments: The court granted the request concerning discrepancies between the number of public comments submitted through the government’s website and the comments included in the administrative record. The government acknowledged a requirement to account for the comments and explained that multiple comments could be included in one document.

Discovery on constitutional claims

The plaintiffs sought civil discovery concerning their Fifth Amendment equal-protection claims. The government argued that the Administrative Procedure Act limited review to the administrative record and therefore barred additional discovery.

Relying on controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that plaintiffs could bring constitutional claims independently of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also concluded that the administrative-record requirement did not control whether discovery was available for those claims. It declined, however, to adopt a categorical rule allowing or prohibiting discovery in constitutional challenges to agency action.

The court found that the constitutional allegations differed from the Administrative Procedure Act allegations. The constitutional claims included allegations of racial and ethnic animus involving the President, senior administration officials, Acting USCIS Director Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, and senior White House advisor Stephen Miller. The court therefore granted plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery on their constitutional claims.

The court did not decide which constitutional standard of review would apply. It also ruled that allowing discovery immediately would be premature because the government had indicated it would file a potentially dispositive motion to dismiss. The court therefore stayed discovery until that motion is resolved. If the government does not file the motion, the parties may ask the court to address the stay.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motions to complete the administrative record. It granted plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery, but stayed discovery until resolution of the government’s forthcoming motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the merits of whether the Public Charge Rule violated the law or the Constitution.