Abadi v. Biden

Background

Aaron Abadi, who was representing himself, sued the United States, President Joe Biden, federal departments and agencies, several agency heads, the City of New York, and Mayor Eric Adams. He challenged federal decisions to end funding for a wall along the southwest border, terminate the COVID-era “wait in Mexico” policy, and enact the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” final rule. He asserted constitutional claims and claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders setting aside the federal policies, preventing their enforcement, and requiring removal of immigrants he described as unlawfully present in New York City.

Abadi also challenged New York City’s policies and its handling of increased numbers of immigrants arriving in the city. He characterized those claims as gross negligence and sought an injunction and damages for allegedly “ruining the city where Plaintiff lives” and causing him anxiety, fear, and emotional distress. He separately moved for an emergency preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from accepting more immigrants.

Court’s analysis

Because Abadi had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual detail to make entitlement to relief plausible.

The court focused first on standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury that is concrete, particularized, caused by the defendant, and likely to be remedied by the requested court order. The court found that Abadi’s alleged injuries were not concrete and particularized. It characterized his claims that New York City was being “ruined,” that immigrants were allegedly bringing contagious illnesses or engaging in criminal activity, that city funds were being depleted, and that he was experiencing stress and anxiety as generalized grievances shared with people generally. The court therefore concluded that he lacked standing to challenge the federal and local immigration policies.

The court also applied the political-question doctrine, which prevents courts from deciding certain issues constitutionally assigned to the political branches or lacking judicially manageable standards. It held that Abadi’s claims against the federal defendants attacked policy choices and value determinations committed to Congress and the Executive Branch. Those claims were therefore not subject to adjudication by the federal courts.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It found that amendment would be futile and declined to grant leave to amend. The court denied Abadi’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judgment was ordered to enter.