State of New York v. Mayorkas

Background

The State of New York and R. L’HEUREUX LEWIS-MCCOY and other plaintiffs challenged a February 5, 2020 decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The decision suspended the eligibility of all New York residents to enroll or re-enroll in Trusted Traveler Programs operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The programs include Global Entry and other programs, although the opinion does not list all of them.

In an earlier ruling, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, vacated the agency decision, and sent the matter back to DHS. The court held that the decision could be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and was “plainly arbitrary and capricious.” The court explained that DHS had failed to consider an important aspect of the problem and had offered an explanation contrary to the evidence in the agency record.

After that ruling, the parties agreed that CBP would not reinstate the enrollment ban for New York residents before the court considered the plaintiffs’ request for further injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction that would bar the government from reinstating a ban based on a state’s or individual’s provision of Department of Motor Vehicles records unless the agency corrected the defects identified in the summary-judgment ruling. They also sought an order requiring DHS to use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures before changing Trusted Traveler Program eligibility requirements.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. It explained that the usual remedy in a successful APA challenge is to set aside, or vacate, the agency action. An injunction is an additional and extraordinary remedy, appropriate only when vacatur and sending the matter back to the agency are not enough to remedy the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that vacatur and remand were insufficient. DHS had rescinded the challenged decision, and the government had acknowledged that later revelations undermined a central argument supporting the decision: that CBP could not assure itself that applicants were low-risk because New York did not share certain Department of Motor Vehicles information. Because that rationale had been undermined, the court found little risk that the government would simply reissue the same decision under a new date. The court also found no looming deadline requiring an injunction to give the plaintiffs immediate access to the court.

The court separately held that the proposed injunction was overbroad. Although the challenged decision affected New York residents, the requested injunction would have barred any ban on Trusted Traveler Program enrollment based on any state’s provision of Department of Motor Vehicles records. The court said that any party harmed by a future eligibility decision could challenge that decision and seek appropriate preliminary relief if necessary.

Disposition

Judge Furman denied the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ injuries had been, or would be, fully remedied by rescission and vacatur of the challenged decision. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ alternative argument that the decision violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements because that issue was unnecessary to the ruling. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified motion docket entries in both cases. The court also stated that it was reserving decision on possible additional steps concerning the defendants’ admitted misrepresentations and a related request for a protective order.