La Clinica De La Raza v. Biden

Background

The plaintiffs challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s final rule, “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” Their amended complaint asserted eight claims, including claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Three claims alleged that former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan had assumed that position unlawfully and that the public-charge rule should therefore be invalidated. The defendants argued that former Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen had lawfully changed the Department’s succession order under the Homeland Security Act, making McAleenan eligible to serve as acting secretary.

In an earlier order, the court concluded that Nielsen’s April 9, 2019 order changed an annex to the Department’s succession document but did not change the succession rules for a resignation. The court determined that Executive Order 13753 therefore governed the succession order. But it also concluded that the President could depart from that order if McAleenan’s appointment complied with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and dismissed the three claims because the plaintiffs had not alleged that the appointment violated that Act.

Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows a district court to revise an order that does not resolve all claims or all parties’ rights before final judgment. They presented four items of later evidence: statements by Department officials in another court proceeding; an opinion by the Government Accountability Office concluding that McAleenan was not validly appointed; a Department letter disputing that opinion; and statements by Acting Secretary Chad Wolf disagreeing with the Government Accountability Office’s conclusions.

The court first rejected the defendants’ renewed arguments because the defendants had effectively presented their own reconsideration motion without seeking permission. The court also found that those arguments could have been raised earlier and did not rely on newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law.

Analysis

The court reaffirmed that Nielsen’s April 9 order amended only Annex A of Delegation No. 00106. It did not change the document’s provisions stating that Executive Order 13753 governed succession when the Secretary resigned. The court found the order’s operative language clear and declined to rely on prefatory language or the defendants’ interpretation offered during the litigation.

The court then reconsidered whether McAleenan’s appointment was valid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The Act provides several methods for temporarily filling a vacant position requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Executive Order 13753 established a succession order and reserved the President’s ability to depart from that order if the Act allowed the appointment.

The defendants acknowledged that the President did not designate McAleenan as acting secretary under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. However, the court noted that President Trump had publicly stated that McAleenan would become acting secretary. The court said it was unclear whether those statements amounted to a designation under the Act. That factual conflict could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss, which tests whether the complaint adequately states a claim based on the allegations and materials properly considered at that stage.

The court also declined to consider later memoranda in which Acting Secretary Wolf purported to affirm or ratify actions taken by McAleenan, including the public-charge rule. The court found that the filings violated the applicable local rule and that the ratification issue was outside the narrow question presented by the reconsideration motion.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third, fifth, and eighth claims concerning McAleenan’s appointment as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and stated that the earlier dismissal order would be amended accordingly.