Anunciato v. Trump

Background

Former President Donald J. Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10014 on April 22, 2020. The proclamation suspended and limited the entry of certain immigrants who were outside the United States, lacked a valid immigrant visa, and lacked another qualifying travel document. It included several exceptions, including for lawful permanent residents, certain health-care workers, spouses and children of U.S. citizens, and people whose entry was determined to be in the national interest.

The plaintiffs were a large group of visa applicants and beneficiaries who filed suit in November 2020. They challenged the lawfulness of Proclamation 10014 and sought a declaration that it exceeded executive authority, an injunction against its implementation or enforcement, and an order vacating or setting aside the proclamation and actions taken under it. The operative First Amended Complaint asserted one claim that the proclamation exceeded executive authority and one claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act claim alleged that visa-processing failures conflicted with federal immigration law and that the proclamation’s implementation was arbitrary and capricious.

President Trump later issued proclamations extending or broadening the restrictions. After President Biden took office, he issued Proclamation 10149, which revoked Proclamation 10014 and portions of the later proclamations. The case’s plaintiffs were reduced from more than 270 to 33, representing 23 visa applications. The remaining plaintiffs had employment-based or family-based applications.

Jurisdiction and Mootness

The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The government argued that revocation of Proclamation 10014 made the dispute moot. A case is moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally recognizable interest in the outcome.

The court concluded that no meaningful relief remained available. A declaration about the validity of a proclamation that was no longer in effect would be only an advisory opinion. An injunction could not prohibit enforcement of a revoked proclamation, and a revoked proclamation could not be vacated or set aside. The court also noted that the State Department had directed diplomatic and consular posts to process visa applications without regard to Proclamation 10014 and had allowed applicants previously refused under it to be reconsidered.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the dispute qualified for the exception covering matters capable of repetition but likely to end before review. Although the controversy might have been short-lived, the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable expectation that they would again face a near-complete immigration ban like Proclamation 10014. The court found that a later, narrower proclamation concerning people who had recently been in India did not establish that likelihood. It also relied on Proclamation 10149’s statement that Proclamation 10014 harmed families and U.S. industries and was unlikely to be revived.

Other Procedural Ruling

The plaintiffs also sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, including a new Administrative Procedure Act theory concerning unreasonable delay. The court held that the First Amended Complaint remained operative. Because jurisdiction had to be resolved before the court considered whether to allow amendment, and because the plaintiffs did not address that conflict, the court denied the request for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case as moot. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.