Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 1 of 15
STAYED,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18−cv−01458−PLF

M. G. U. et al v. NIELSEN et al Assigned to: Judge Paul L. Friedman Cases: 1:18−cv−01759−PLF
1:18−cv−01835−PLF Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/20/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

M. G. U.

represented by David J. Ball PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223−7300 Fax: (202) 223−7420 Email: dball@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerome William Wesevich TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC 1331 Texas Avenue El Paso, TX 79901 (915) 241−0534 Fax: (915) 544−3789 Email: jwesevich@trla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Chisholm TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC 114 N. 6th Street Alpine, TX 79830 (432) 837−1199 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Sithian PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (212) 373−3000 Fax: (212) 492−0464 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine kelly Fell PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (212) 373−3000 Fax: (212) 757−3990 Email: KFell@paulweiss.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Arfa

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 2 of 15

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (212) 373−3000 Fax: (212) 492−0214 Email: marfa@paulweiss.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter E. McGraw TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC 1206 East Van Buren Street Brownsville, TX 78520 (956) 982−5543 Fax: (956) 541−1410 Email: pmcgraw@trla.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Herzog PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 9212) 373−3000 Fax: (212) 492−0317 Email: sherzog@paulweiss.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff E. F.

represented by David J. Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerome William Wesevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Chisholm (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Sithian (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine kelly Fell (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith Arfa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter E. McGraw (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 3 of 15

Plaintiff A. P. F.
Plaintiff P. M. B. Plaintiff C. O. M.

Steven Herzog (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome William Wesevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Chisholm (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Sithian (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine kelly Fell (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith Arfa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter E. McGraw (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Herzog (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerome William Wesevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerome William Wesevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant KIRSTJEN NIELSEN

represented by

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 4 of 15

Jeremy S. Simon U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2528 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: jeremy.simon@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division/Off. of Immig. Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616−0473 Fax: (202) 616−4950 Email: nicole.murley@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532−4824 Fax: (202) 616−8962 Email: sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant THOMAS HOMAN

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant DANIEL A. BIBLE

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 5 of 15

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant RODNEY S. SCOTT

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant KEVIN K. MCALEENAN

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MANUEL PADILLA, JR.

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant SCOTT LLOYD

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 6 of 15

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant ALEX AZAR

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant WILLIAM JOYCE

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 7 of 15

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

represented by Jeremy S. Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Newcomb Murley

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 8 of 15
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B. Fabian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/20/2018
06/20/2018
06/20/2018 06/20/2018 06/21/2018 06/21/2018 06/21/2018
06/21/2018 06/22/2018
06/22/2018 06/22/2018 06/22/2018 06/25/2018 06/25/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−5545322) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS 2013 Policy, # 2 Exhibit DHS 2017 Policy, # 3 Exhibit AG Zero−Tolerance Directive, # 4 Exhibit DHS Family Separation Policy, # 5 Exhibit DHS Flyer for Detained Parents, # 6 Exhibit Sample 1325 Docket, # 7 Exhibit AAP Child Detention Policy Statement)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
2 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by All Plaintiffs.(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
4 MOTION for Leave to File and Proceed Using Pseudonyms filed by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) Modified event title on 6/27/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 06/20/2018)
5 CIVIL COVER SHEET (Corrected) by E. F., M. G. U., A. P. F. re 1 Complaint, filed by E. F., M. G. U., A. P. F.. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by E. F., A. P. F., M. G. U..(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
6 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. re 4 MOTION File and Proceed Using Pseudonyms (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING the plaintiffs' 4 Motion to File Complaint and Proceed Using Pseudonyms. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 21, 2018. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
Case Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (zsb) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of APF, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of EF, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of MGU, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Athan, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Fortuna, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah B. Fabian on behalf of All Defendants (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
10 SUMMONS (15) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants. (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zsb) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
11 Case reassigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman as he has an earlier related case. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan is no longer assigned to the case. (rj) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
12 ERRATA by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by E. F., A. P. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of APF, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of MGU)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a hearing on plaintiffs' motion 8 for a temporary restraining order on June 27, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 29A before Judge Paul L. Friedman. The defendants may file a written response to plaintiffs' motion on or before noon on June 27, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 25, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 9 of 15

06/26/2018
06/26/2018
06/26/2018 06/26/2018 06/26/2018 06/26/2018 06/26/2018 06/27/2018
06/27/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executive Order, # 2 Exhibit DHS Retraction Policy, # 3 Exhibit DHS Family Apprehensions, # 4 Declaration M.G.U. Declaration, # 5 Declaration E.F. Declaration, # 6 Declaration A.P.F. Declaration, # 7 Declaration Chris Carlin Declaration, # 8 Declaration Agent Ortiz Declaration, # 9 Exhibit UN Letter Human Rights, # 10 Declaration Dr. Griffin Declaration, # 11 Declaration Dr. Linton Declaration, # 12 Declaration Dr. Shapiro Declaration, # 13 Exhibit Medical Association Chorus, # 14 Exhibit NPR Transcript, # 15 Exhibit Marshall Project on HHS, # 16 Exhibit CNN Video Link, # 17 Exhibit Houston Chronicle Article, # 18 Exhibit NYT Article, # 19 Declaration PM Authenticating, # 20 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Preliminary Injunction)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall submit a joint report proposing a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' motion 13 for a preliminary injunction on or before June 27, 2018 at 12:00 P.M. The joint report shall specify the following: (1) the due date of the United States' response to plaintiffs' motion; (2) the due date of plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion; (3) proposed dates and times for a hearing on the motion during the week of July 9, 2018 or July 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 26, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
14 Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order for Consideration of Application for Preliminary Injunction by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties' joint motion 14 for a briefing schedule is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their response to plaintiffs' motion 13 for a preliminary injunction on or before July 6, 2018. Plaintiffs shall file a reply on or before July 9, 2018. The parties shall appear for a hearing on plaintiffs' motion 13 for a preliminary injunction on July 12, 2018 at 10:30 A.M. in Courtroom 29A before Judge Paul L. Friedman. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 26, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy S. Simon on behalf of All Defendants (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Hearing on motion for temporary restraining order set for 6/27/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 29A before Judge Paul L. Friedman. (tj) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Defendant's Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction due by 7/6/2018; Plaintiff's Reply due by 7/9/2018; Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 7/12/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 29A before Judge Paul L. Friedman. (tj) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
16 Memorandum in opposition to re 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul L. Friedman: Motion Hearing held on 6/27/2018 re 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by E. F., A. P. F., M. G. U.. Motion held in ABEYANCE for reasons stated on the record. Joint Status Report due by 7/5/2018. (Court Reporter: Cathryn Jones.) (tj) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by David J. Ball on behalf of A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Ball, David) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
18 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Steven C. Herzog, :Firm− Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, :Address− 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019−6064. Phone No. − (212) 373−3000. Fax No. − (212) 492−0317 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5562962. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Steven C. Herzog, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Ball, David) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 10 of 15

06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/29/2018 06/29/2018
06/29/2018 07/03/2018
07/03/2018 07/03/2018 07/04/2018 07/04/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018

19 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Meredith A. Arfa, :Firm− Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, :Address− 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019−6064. Phone No. − (212) 373−3000. Fax No. − (212) 492−0214 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5562964. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Meredith A. Arfa, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Ball, David) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Katherine Kelly Fell, :Firm− Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, :Address− 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019−6064. Phone No. − (212) 373−3000. Fax No. − (212) 492−0550 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5562965. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Katherine Kelly Fell, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Ball, David) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting Motion 18 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Steven C. Herzog; Motion 19 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Meredith A. Arfa; and Motion 20 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Katherine Kelly Fell on behalf of plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 29, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
21 STIPULATION for Protective Order by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
22 Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 29, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Peter McGraw, :Firm− Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, :Address− 1206 East Van Buren St., Brownsville, Texas 78520. Phone No. − 956−982−5543. Fax No. − 915−541−1410 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5570175. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Peter McGraw, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) Modified attorney information on 7/5/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 07/03/2018)
24 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Amanda Chilsholm, :Firm− Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, :Address− 11r N. 6th Street., Alpine, Texas 79830. Phone No. − 432−837−1199. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5570193. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Amanda Chisholm, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) Modified attorney information on 7/5/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 07/03/2018)
25 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Expedition in Advance of Preliminary Injunction Hearing by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration Discovery Sought From Defendants, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting Motion 23 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Peter McGraw and Motion 24 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Amanda Chisholm on behalf of plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 4, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/04/2018)
MINUTE ORDER directing defendants to respond to plaintiffs' emergency motion 25 for expedited discovery on or before Friday, July 6, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 4, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/04/2018)
26 Joint STATUS REPORT CONCERNING TRO APPLICATION, ECF No. 8 by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. In advance of the hearing on July 12, 2018, the parties are invited to file submissions no longer than five pages each, addressing the relevance, if any, of Damus v. Nielsen, Civil Action No. 18−578, 2018 WL 3232515 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018),

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 11 of 15

07/06/2018
07/06/2018
07/07/2018 07/09/2018 07/09/2018 07/09/2018 07/09/2018 07/10/2018
07/11/2018 07/11/2018 07/11/2018

to the issues in this case. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 6, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
27 Memorandum in opposition to re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
28 Memorandum in opposition to re 25 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Expedition in Advance of Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiffs to file a reply in support of their emergency motion 25 for expedited discovery on or before 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 7, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/07/2018)
29 REPLY to opposition to motion re 25 Emergency MOTION for Discovery Expedition in Advance of Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
30 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 plaintiffs' emergency motion for expedited discovery. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 9, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. At the hearing on July 12, 2018, the parties shall be prepared to address both Plaintiffs' Motion 13 for a Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiffs' Motion 8 for a Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 9, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
31 REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ORR Policy, # 2 Exhibit Texas DFPS Policy, # 3 Exhibit July 6 Status Conference − Ms. L, # 4 Declaration Ms. Shalyn Flulharty)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
32 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Anand Sithian, :Firm− Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, :Address− 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019−6064. Phone No. − (212) 373−3000. Fax No. − (212) 492−0464 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5580221. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anand Sithian, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Ball, David) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicole Newcomb Murley on behalf of All Defendants (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
34 ORDER granting 32 motion for admission pro hac vice of Anand Sithian on behalf of plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 11, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
35 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Paul L. Friedman held on June 27, 2018; Page Numbers: 1 − 32. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cathryn Jones, Telephone number 2023543246, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/node/110">Transcript Order Form</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 12 of 15

07/11/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018
07/13/2018
07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/16/2018 07/16/2018
07/16/2018

from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/1/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2018.(Jones, Cathryn) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
36 NOTICE of Supplementary Preliminary Injunction Evidence by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. re 12 Errata (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Discovery Responses, # 2 Exhibit EF Form Produced by Defendants, # 3 Exhibit EF Declaration)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
37 NOTICE Regarding Damus v. Nielsen by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. re Order, (Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
38 NOTICE of Supplementary Preliminary Injunction Evidence by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ashley Martinez)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
Minute Entry for Preliminary Injunction hearing held before Judge Paul L. Friedman on 7/12/18. Argument heard and motion taken under advisement. Oral motion for stay of plaintiff E.F.s removal from the United States until plaintiffs intentions are clarified, is taken under advisement. Declaration of Ms. Martinez and plaintiff E.F. to be filed by 7/13/18. Status report regarding asylum application of plaintiff E.F. and status of removal order to be filed by defendants by 7/13/18. Status report regarding credible fear interview of plaintiff A.P.F to be filed by defendants by 7/13/18. Revised proposed order regarding plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order to be filed by 7/13/18. Relevant status reports submitted in the Ms. L. class action on or after 7/12/18, to be promptly filed in this action by defendants. Order to follow. (Court Reporter: Lisa Griffith.) (tj) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
39 STATUS REPORT by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
40 STATUS REPORT BY PLAINTIFFS REGARDING JULY 12, 2018 HEARING by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration E.F., # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
41 Supplemental STATUS REPORT BY PLAINTIFFS REGARDING JULY 12, 2018 HEARING by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ashley Martinez)(Wesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part as moot 8 plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 16, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
43 NOTICE Of Additional Filings in Ms. L by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
44 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that defendants are temporarily restrained from removing from the United States plaintiff E.F. until further court order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 16, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 13 of 15

07/17/2018
07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/24/2018 07/24/2018 07/25/2018
08/08/2018
08/20/2018 08/21/2018 08/27/2018 08/28/2018 08/29/2018 09/10/2018

45 STATUS REPORT by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT. (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
46 ORDER granting plaintiffs' Motion 13 for a Preliminary Injunction. Defendants must reunify plaintiff E.F. with her son on or before midnight on Friday, July 20, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 18, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
47 OPINION re plaintiffs' Motion 13 for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 18, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to file a joint notice on or before July 25, 2018, advising the Court of the status of plaintiff E.F. and her child and defendants' compliance with the Court's Order of July 18, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 24, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Notice due by 7/25/2018. (gdf) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
48 NOTICE Joint Notice by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT re Order, (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
49 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Paul L. Friedman held on 7−12−18; Page Numbers: 1−59. Date of Issuance:8−8−18. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Griffith, Telephone number (202) 354−3247, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/node/110">Transcript Order Form</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/8/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/6/2018.(Griffith, Lisa) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint status report as to how they intend to proceed in this matter on or before Monday, August 27, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 20, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 8/27/2018 (tj) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
50 Joint STATUS REPORT Regarding August 20, 2018 Order by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Herzog, Steven) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the parties' joint status report 50 , the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before September 10, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 28, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/10/2018 (tj) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
51 Joint STATUS REPORT by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INCWesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 14 of 15

11/02/2018
11/02/2018 11/09/2018
11/19/2018 11/19/2018 11/20/2018 12/07/2018 12/21/2018
12/21/2018 12/23/2018 12/23/2018

52 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting defendants' unopposed motion 52 to extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint to November 9, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on November 2, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
53 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
54 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Herzog, Steven) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiffs' unopposed motion 54 for extension of time regarding briefing schedule. Plaintiffs shall file their response to defendants' motion to dismiss 53 on or before December 7, 2018. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, on or before December 21, 2018. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on November 19, 2018. (MA) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 12/7/2018; Replies due by 12/21/2018. (tj) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
55 Memorandum in opposition to re 53 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−11, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Herzog, Steven) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
56 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
57 ORDER granting defendants' unopposed motion 56 for extension of time to file their reply in support of their motion 53 to dismiss. Defendants shall file their reply on or before January 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 21, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
58 MOTION for Leave to File Attached First Supplemental Complaint Adding Two Parties by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Supplemental Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INCWesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 12/23/2018)
59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by A. P. F., E. F., M. G. U., P. M. B., C. O. M. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Denise Gilman, # 2 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Government's Denial of Settlement Agreement Applicability, # 4 Declaration Young Center Declaration, # 5 Declaration Fluharty Declaration, # 6 Declaration Plaintiff P.M.B. Declaration, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INCWesevich, Jerome) (Entered: 12/23/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-1458 As of: 01/28/2019 06:19 PM EST 15 of 15

12/24/2018 12/26/2018
12/26/2018 12/27/2018

60 ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency TRO, Dkt. 59 , it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are temporarily restrained from separating P.M.B. and C.O.M. or removing from the United States Plaintiff P.M.B. until further order of this Court. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/24/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 12/24/2018)
61 Unopposed MOTION to Stay All Case Deadlines Due To Lapse in Appropriations by ALEX AZAR, DANIEL A. BIBLE, ROBERT L. BOATRIGHT, THOMAS HOMAN, WILLIAM JOYCE, SCOTT LLOYD, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, MANUEL PADILLA, JR, RODNEY S. SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 1/4/2019. (tj) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
62 ORDER granting defendants' unopposed motion 61 to stay case deadlines in light of lapse of appropriations. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 27, 2018. (lcplf1) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

M.G.U.

E.F.

A.P.F.

§

300 El Rancho Way

8915 Montana Ave.

27991 Buena Vista Blvd. §

Dilley, TX 78017

El Paso, TX 79925

Los Fresnos, TX 78566

§

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§ Civil Action No.

v.

§

§ 18-cv-
§

Kirstjen Nielsen

Thomas Homan

Daniel A. Bible

§

245 Murray Ln. S.W. 500 12th St. S.W.

1777 N.E. Loop 410 Fl. 15 §

Washington, D.C. 20528 Washington, D.C. 20536

San Antonio, TX 78217 §

Rodney S. Scott

Kevin K. McAleenan

Manuel Padilla, Jr.

§

2411 Boswell Rd.

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. 4400 S. Expy. 281

§

Chula Vista, CA 91914 Washington, D.C. 20229 Edinburg, TX 78542

§

Scott Lloyd

Alex Azar

Robert L. Boatright

§

330 C St. S.W.

200 Independence Ave. S.W. 300 E. Madrid St.

§

Washington, D.C. 20201 Washington, D.C. 20201 Marfa, TX 79843

§

William Joyce

§

11541 Montana Ave. Ste E

§

El Paso, TX 79936

§

§

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

§

245 Murray Ln. S.W.

§

Washington, D.C. 20528

§

§

U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement

§

500 12th St. S.W.

§

Washington, D.C. 20536

§

§

U.S Customs and Border Protection

§

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

§

Washington, D.C. 20229

§

§

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

§

200 Independence Ave. S.W.

§

Washington, D.C. 20201

§

§

U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement

§

330 C St. S.W.

§

Washington, D.C. 20201

§

§

Defendants.

§

COMPLAINT SEEKING PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 2 of 19
INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges the federal government’s recent decision to indefinitely separate immigrant parents from their young children. The government’s separation policy is designed, intended, and administered as a means of deterring all immigration, even legal immigration by those with a right to seek asylum. This is punishment, it interferes with family integrity, and it interferes with access to courts, all of which our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment does not allow. Families naturally experience forced separation as torture and they urge this Court to stop it.
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff M.G.U. is an individual who is a citizen of Guatemala and is presently detained by Defendants near Pearsall, Texas after Defendants forcibly separated her from her three biological children whose ages are 2, 6, and 13. 3. Plaintiff E.F. is an individual who is a citizen of Guatemala and is presently detained by Defendants near El Paso, Texas after Defendants forcibly separated her from her 9-year-old biological son. 4. Plaintiff A.P.F. is an individual who is a citizen of Honduras and is presently detained by Defendants near Los Fresnos, Texas after Defendants forcibly separated him from his 12-yearold biological daughter. 5. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government that is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws, overseeing lawful immigration to the United States, and screening of asylum applicants. 6. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is a component of DHS. ICE is the principal investigative arm of DHS and is charged with criminal and civil enforcement of federal immigration laws. ICE’s primary duties include the investigation of persons suspected
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 3 of 19
to have violated the immigration laws and the apprehension, detention, and removal of people who are not lawfully present in the United States. 7. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is a component of DHS. CBP is responsible for the initial processing and detention of people without lawful immigration status who CBP apprehends near the U.S. border. 8. Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government that is responsible for administering a broad range of programs addressing social needs, including care for all persons who meet the definition of “unaccompanied alien child” stated in 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2). 9. Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is a component of HHS. ORR is responsible for care and placement of “unaccompanied” children under § 279(g)(2). 10. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of DHS. In this capacity, she is charged with enforcing and administering the immigration laws, and directing all HHS component agencies, including DHS, ICE, and CBP. She has ultimate authority over all policies, procedures, and practices relating to immigrant detention conducted by CBP and ICE. She is responsible for ensuring that all detained individuals held in CBP and ICE custody are detained in accord with law. 11. Defendant Thomas D. Homan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Director of ICE. In that capacity, he has authority over all ICE policies, procedures, and practices relating to ICE enforcement operations and detention facilities. He is responsible for ensuring that all people held in ICE custody are detained in accord with law. 12. Defendant Daniel A. Bible is sued in his official capacity as the Field Office Director of ICE, San Antonio, Texas. In that capacity, he has direct responsibility for policies, procedures,
3

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 4 of 19
and practices relating to ICE enforcement operations and detention facilities in the Central South Texas Area of Responsibility. He is responsible for ensuring that all individuals held in ICE custody in the Central South Texas Area of Responsibility are detained in accord with law. 13. Defendant William Joyce is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Field Office Director of ICE, El Paso, Texas. In that capacity, he has direct responsibility for policies, procedures, and practices relating to ICE enforcement operations and detention facilities in the West Texas and New Mexico Areas of Responsibility. He is responsible for ensuring that all individuals held in ICE custody in the West Texas and New Mexico Areas of Responsibility are detained in accord with law. 14. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of CBP. In that capacity, he has direct authority over all CBP policies, procedures, and practices relating to CBP immigration enforcement operations and facilities. He is responsible for ensuring that the arrest and detention of all individuals by CBP is in accord with law. 15. Defendant Rodney S. Scott is sued in his official capacity as the Chief Patrol Agent for the San Diego Sector of CBP. In that capacity, he has direct responsibility for policies, procedures, and practices relating to CBP enforcement operations and detention in the San Diego, California Sector. 16. Defendant Robert L. Boatright is sued in his official capacity as the Chief Patrol Agent for the Big Bend Sector of CBP. In that capacity, he has direct responsibility for policies, procedures, and practices relating to CBP enforcement operations and detention in the Big Bend Sector of Texas.
4

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 5 of 19
17. Defendant Manuel Padilla, Jr. is sued in his official capacity as the Chief Patrol Agent for the Rio Grande Valley Sector of CBP. In that capacity, he has direct responsibility for policies, procedures, and practices relating to CBP enforcement operations and detention in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas Sector. 18. Defendant Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of HHS. In that capacity, he is charged with the care and custody of “unaccompanied” children, including their reunification with parents. He has ultimate authority over all policies, procedures, and practices relating to the care and custody of “unaccompanied” children. He is responsible for ensuring that the care and custody of all “unaccompanied” children in HHS custody is in accord with law. 19. Defendant Scott Lloyd is sued in his official capacity as the Director of ORR. In that capacity, he is charged with the care and custody of “unaccompanied” children, including their reunification with a legal parent or guardian. He is responsible for ensuring that the care and custody of all “unaccompanied” children in ORR custody is in accord with law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1346 (federal defendant). This action arises under the U.S. Constitution. 21. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 22. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the defendant federal agencies are headquartered in this District.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS 23. Attached to this Complaint are the following documents, which Plaintiffs incorporate pursuant to Rule 10(c):
5

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 6 of 19
a. DHS’s 2013 policy on respecting parental rights is filed as ECF No. 1-1; b. DHS’s 2017 rescission of its policy respecting parental rights is filed as ECF No.
1-2; c. The Attorney General’s 2018 “Zero-Tolerance” directive is filed as ECF No. 1-3; d. DHS’s 2018 policy on separating children is filed as ECF No. 1-4; e. DHS’s 2018 notice to separated parents is filed as ECF No. 1-5; f. The docket from one court for one day, showing standard brief sentences
imposed, ending prosecutions within days after arrest, is filed as ECF No. 1-6; and g. American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Detention of Immigrant Children is filed as ECF No. 1-7.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Forced Separation Harms Children and Parents 24. Forced separation of parents from their children causes trauma to both. 25. The trauma can be severe, and can endanger their physical and mental health. 26. Each of these factors compounds the trauma of forced separation:
a. the duration of separation is indefinite, and unknown to parent or child; b. the child is young; c. parent and child are denied information about one another; and d. parent or child have pre-existing trauma. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an association of over 66,000 physicians who specialize in treating children and training others to do so. AAP concludes that “Separation of a parent or primary caregiver from his or her children should never occur, unless there are
6

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 7 of 19
concerns for safety of the child at the hand of a parent.” American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, Detention of Immigrant Children at 7 (Mar. 13, 2017), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/5/e20170483 (visited June 18, 2018).
B. Defendants Made a Policy Choice to Begin Separating Families in Late 2017 28. Defendants and their predecessor agencies have enforced immigration laws at U.S. borders for almost a century. 29. Defendants’ history of immigration law enforcement has included periods when Defendants apprehended large numbers of noncitizen parents who entered the United States together with their minor noncitizen children. 30. Until late 2017, Defendants’ policy was to maintain immigrant families intact as they enforced immigration laws. 31. Until late 2017, Defendants committed that “ICE will maintain a comprehensive process for identifying, placing, monitoring, accommodating, and removing alien parents or legal guardians of minor children while safeguarding their parental rights.” ICE defined “parental rights” to mean “[t]he fundamental rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their minor children without regard to the child’s citizenship, as provided for and limited by applicable law.” 32. On August 29, 2017, Defendants rescinded the language quoted in the previous paragraph. 33. Throughout 2017, Defendants’ leaders and employees began publicly threatening to begin a policy of separating immigrant families as a means of deterring immigration. See, e.g., CNN Interview of DHS Secretary John Kelly at 00:55 to 01:05 (March 7, 2017),
7

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 8 of 19
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-from-parentsimmigration-border/index.html (visited June 18, 2018). 34. Slowly in late 2017, and more rapidly as 2018 progressed, Defendants began to routinely separate immigrant parents from their children. See U.S. v. Dominguez-Portillo, No. EP-17-MJ4409, 2018 WL 315759 at *1-8 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2018). 35. On April 6, 2018, the U.S. Attorney General announced a “zero tolerance” policy for entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) and directed the U.S. Department of Justice to accept for prosecution all referrals of § 1325(a) complaints from ICE and CBP. 36. Although entering the United States without inspection is a crime under 1325(a), courts describe it as “quite literally one of the least serious federal offenses.” Dominguez-Portillo, 2018 WL 315759 at *8. Congress defines a first violation of § 1325(a) as a “petty misdemeanor” punishable by up to six months’ incarceration. 18 U.S.C. § 19. 37. Judges almost never impose six months’ incarceration for violation of § 1325(a). Instead, in thousands of § 1325(a) prosecutions every year, the standard sentence for a person with no criminal or immigration history is “time served,” meaning that the one-to-three days that a person awaits appearance in court after arrest is the only criminal sanction imposed. 38. Judges alone decide § 1325(a) sentencing, not Defendants or the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Judges consider need to care for children as part of sentencing. See U.S. v. King, 201 F. Supp. 3d 167, 171 (D.D.C. 2016). 39. Defendants and the Attorney General are well aware that almost all § 1325(a) prosecutions and sentencing will be concluded within days after arrest. 40. Defendants cite the fact of a § 1325(a) prosecution as a pretext for separating parents from their children indefinitely.
8

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 9 of 19
41. On June 15, 2018, Defendants published a policy stating: a. all parents charged with violating § 1325(a) will be separated from their children at or near the time of arrest; b. the separation will be indefinite; c. the anguish that Defendants know that they cause by this separation will be addressed by providing mental health services to parents and children; d. Defendants do not guarantee that parents will ever be reunited with their children; e. if parents wish for further information about their children, they may call or email Defendants.
DHS Family Separation Policy (June 15, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/15/factsheet-zero-tolerance-immigration-prosecutions-families . 42. Between November 2017 and June 2018, Defendants have separated roughly two thousand parents from their children without regard to parental fitness. 43. Defendants’ change in family separation practice has resulted from changed agency policy alone, and not from any change in any statute or codified regulation.
C. Defendants Forcibly Separated Plaintiffs From Their Children 44. Defendants currently hold Plaintiffs and their children solely as civil immigration detainees, and not in association with any criminal charge or conviction.
(i) Plaintiff M.G.U. 45. Defendants forcibly separated Plaintiff M.G.U. from G.V.G., her biological 2-year-old son, J.V.G., her biological 6-year-old son, and W.M.G., her biological 13-year-old son. 46. M.G.U. does not currently have sufficient reliable information about where her sons are, how to contact them, or how they will be reunited.
9

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 10 of 19
47. The separation and lack of information described in the preceding paragraphs cause M.G.U. and her sons continuous and severe emotional distress. 48. M.G.U. and her sons are citizens of Guatemala. 49. M.G.U. and her sons fled Guatemala after receiving threats of murder due to community organizing efforts undertaken by M.G.U.’s husband in Guatemala. 50. In compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1325, M.G.U., G.V.G., J.V.G., and W.M.G. crossed the U.S.-Mexico border together and presented themselves to Defendants’ employees at the San Ysidro, California port of entry on May 4, 2018, and sought asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 due to their fear of returning to Guatemala. 51. Defendants’ employees detained M.G.U., G.V.G., J.V.G., and W.M.G., and transferred them together from California to the South Texas Family Residential Center (STFRC) that Defendants operate near Dilley, Texas. 52. On May 18, 2018, M.G.U., G.V.G., J.V.G., and W.M.G. were provided a “credible fear interview” at STFRC before an Asylum Officer as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 53. Within two days after the credible fear interviews, M.G.U. was eating lunch at STFRC with her 2-year-old and her 6-year-old children. Her 13-year-old ran into the lunchroom and exclaimed that officers had told him that the entire family was being released and needed to pack immediately. After the family packed everything from their room at STFRC, they were escorted STFRC’s intake area, where families are processed for release. 54. An officer then informed M.G.U. that he had good news and bad news. The good news: M.G.U. received a positive credible fear determination and her family would be released from STFRC. The bad news: the family would not be leaving together, and instead were going to be separated. The officer stated that Defendants intended to take the children and transport them to
10

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 11 of 19
New York while M.G.U. would be detained in Texas. M.G.U., G.V.G., J.V.G., and W.M.G. all burst out in tears, with proverbial weeping and gnashing of teeth. 55. M.G.U. eventually asked the officers how long the separation would last, and the officers responded that the separation would last at most a week. The officers stated that a judge needed to talk to M.G.U. 56. M.G.U.’s 13-year-old son held her 2-year-old in one arm and held the hand of her 6-yearold in the other as Defendants’ employees and agents led them away from STFRC at about 2 p.m. on May 18, 2018. This was the last time that MGU has seen any of her children. 57. M.G.U.’s separation from her sons has already endured for almost a month, and M.G.U. has never been taken before any judge during this time. 58. M.G.U. presently has no idea when or how she will be reunited with her children. 59. Defendants have allowed M.G.U. to speak with her children by telephone once or twice per week. 60. When M.G.U. speaks with her children, they express fear, distress, and no understanding of what the future holds. M.G.U.’s 6-year-old is so overcome with grief that he can say little, and instead cries during his telephone calls with M.G.U. M.G.U. has only heard the voice of her 2-year-old toddler once since being separated; she has only heard him cry. 61. M.G.U. worries about her children constantly and is depressed due to her separation from them. 62. M.G.U., G.V.G., J.V.G., and W.M.G. are all desperate to be reunited with one another.
(ii) Plaintiff A.P.F. 63. Defendants forcibly separated Plaintiff A.P.F. from C.P.R., his 12-year-old biological daughter.
11

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 12 of 19
64. A.P.F. does not currently have sufficient reliable information about where C.P.R. is, how to contact C.P.R., or how they will be reunited. 65. The separation and lack of information described in the preceding paragraphs cause A.P.F. and C.P.R. continuous and severe emotional distress. 66. A.P.F. and C.P.R. are citizens of Honduras. 67. A.P.F. fled Honduras to the United States after A.P.F. was shot in the shoulder, producing scars that he still bears today. After A.P.F. returned from the hospital to his home in Honduras, he received threats that he and his family would be killed. 68. A.P.F. and C.P.R. crossed the U.S.-Mexico border together in Cameron County, Texas on June 4, 2018. They were extremely tired and hungry from their journey. They began walking alongside a road and soon encountered immigration officials. A.P.F. approached the officials and asked for assistance for himself and his daughter in seeking asylum. 69. Defendants’ employees arrested A.P.F. and C.P.R. on the spot and drove them to a processing center in Brownsville, Texas. 70. Within minutes after A.P.F. and C.P.R. entered the facility, Defendants’ employees presented A.P.F. and C.P.R. with several documents and indicated on each document where they should sign, and both A.P.F. and C.P.R. signed the forms together. At no time did anyone explain what the forms state. A.P.F. still has no idea what the forms state. 71. After A.P.F. and C.P.R. signed the forms, Defendants’ employees physically separated A.P.F. from C.P.R. by leading C.P.R. out of the room where A.P.F. sat. Defendants’ employees did not explain what they were doing. A.P.F. assumed that he would soon be reunited with C.P.R. and assumed that C.P.R. thought the same thing.
12

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 13 of 19
72. Defendants’ employees did not inform APF that he and his daughter would be indefinitely separated until A.P.F. was transferred to a different detention location near Brownsville, Texas later on the same day of arrest, June 4, 2018. At that time, the only information provided to A.P.F. about C.P.R. was that they would be separated indefinitely. 73. On June 5 or 6, 2018, A.P.F. pleaded guilty in federal court to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), and a judge sentenced A.P.F. to a term of detention equal to the time that A.P.F. had previously spent in federal custody known as “time served.” 74. A.P.F. is currently detained by Defendants’ employees and agents near Los Fresnos, Texas. 75. A.P.F. has expressed his fear of returning to Honduras to guards on several occasions and intends to pursue an application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 76. A.P.F. has no information from Defendants or anyone else about C.P.R., her well-being, or her whereabouts. 77. A.P.F. convulses and cries when he speaks of his daughter and the pain that they both endure from their separation. He is unable to sleep for worry about his daughter.
(iii) Plaintiff E.F. 78. Defendants forcibly separated Plaintiff E.F. from B.Y.A.F., her 9-year-old biological son, and her only child. 79. E.F. does not currently have sufficient reliable information about where B.Y.A.F. is, how to contact him, or how they will be reunited. 80. The separation and lack of information described in the preceding paragraphs cause E.F. and B.Y.A.F.. continuous and severe emotional distress.
13

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 14 of 19
81. E.F. and B.Y.A.F. are citizens of Guatemala. They fled Guatemala after being threatened with violence. E.F. and B.Y.A.F. crossed the U.S.-Mexico border together near Presidio, Texas on May 14, 2018. The first and only action they took after crossing was to affirmatively search for immigration officials at a nearby port of entry. They found the officials quickly and asked for protection. The officials arrested and detained them together. 82. On May 15, 2018, Defendants’ employees forcibly separated E.F. from B.Y.A.F. amid much crying and confusion and begging by E.F. and B.Y.A.F. 83. After B.Y.A.F. was led away, Defendants provided E.F. no information about why they were separated, how long it would last, how B.Y.A.F. would be cared for, or how they would be reunited. 84. On or about May 18, 2018, Defendants’ employees transferred E.F. into the custody of U.S. marshals at a federal courthouse where, minutes later, E.F. pleaded not guilty to violating § 1325(a) because she affirmatively sought inspection at the border and did not believe that she evaded inspection. 85. On June 6, 2018, a record trial was held where E.F. testified about her experience in fleeing Guatemala and seeking protection in the United States, and in being forcibly separated from her child. 86. Upon hearing the evidence, the magistrate pronounced E.F. guilty of violating § 1325(a), sentenced her to “time served,” closed her criminal case, and returned her to Defendants’ custody. 87. E.F. is presently held in immigration detention in Texas while she pursues her asylum claim.
14

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 15 of 19
88. Now, almost a month after criminal proceedings concluded against her, E.F. is still unsure where her son is, although she believes that he is in New York. She has been allowed to speak with him one time since their forced separation. 89. E.F. has trouble eating and sleeping, and she wakes up crying, for worry about her son.
D. Defendants Inflicted Separation as Punishment 90. The following facts show that Defendants separated Plaintiffs from their children to punish Plaintiffs. 91. Defendants had no legitimate reason for forcibly separating Plaintiffs from their children, for maintaining the separation indefinitely, or for maintaining the separation without providing sufficient information or contact. 92. Defendants implemented a practice of not merely separating parents from their children, but doing so indefinitely and without providing information to family members about one another, to demonstrate to the world what agony parents should expect if they attempt to enter the United States with their children. 93. Defendants expect reports of the agony endured by Plaintiffs and people like Plaintiffs to deter not only illegal immigration, but also legal immigration from people who have a right to seek asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 94. The employees and agents who Defendants deploy to interact with parents and children in immigration detention facilities sadistically tease and taunt parents and children with the prospect of separation, and do so using words and tones indicating that Defendants’ employees and agents enjoy the pain and suffering that the very idea of separation causes to parents and children.
15

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 16 of 19
CAUSES OF ACTION: 95. All of the foregoing allegations of fact are incorporated as if repeated to support each of the following two causes of action. 96. All persons on U.S. soil, including all Plaintiffs and their children, are protected by Due Process under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
COUNT I: Punishment of Civil Detainees in Violation of Due Process 97. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibits punishment of immigrants held in civil detention. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 & n.20 (1979). 98. At all times after Defendants arrested Plaintiffs and their children, Defendants and their agents and employees have continuously detained Plaintiffs and their children pursuant to civil immigration detention statutes or as persons charged with crime awaiting trial. Defendants’ have never detained Plaintiffs as convicted criminals. 99. Defendants intend to punish Plaintiffs and their children by taking the following actions:
a. forcibly separating them; b. maintaining separation indefinitely; c. failing to provide meaningful information to parents or children about one
another’s whereabouts and well-being, and anticipated reunification; and d. preventing them from reliable and ready access to means of communicating with
one another. 100. The following actions taken by Defendants punish Plaintiffs and their children regardless of any intent by any Defendant because they are patently excessive in relation to any legitimate objective:
a. forcibly separating Plaintiffs from their children;
16

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 17 of 19
b. maintaining separation indefinitely; c. failing to provide meaningful information to parents or children about one
another’s whereabouts and well-being, and anticipated reunification; and d. preventing them from reliable and ready access to means of communicating with
one another. COUNT II: Family Separation in Violation of Due Process
101. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protects the relationship of parent and child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). 102. Plaintiffs and their children have a liberty interest in remaining together as a family, which is protected by Due Process. 103. Defendants’ initial separation of Plaintiffs from their children violates substantive Due Process because it furthers no legitimate purpose, and serves no compelling government interest. 104. Defendants’ continued separation of Plaintiffs from their children after conclusion of all criminal proceedings violates substantive Due Process because it furthers no legitimate purpose, and serves no compelling government interest.
PRAYER 105. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant them the following relief:
(a) issue preliminary and permanent injunctions directing Defendants to immediately reunite Plaintiffs with their children, and to refrain from taking any action to separate them absent emergency or further order of this Court;
(b) order Defendants to produce the complete administrative record in the time specified by D.D.C. LOC. R. 7(n)(1);
(c) enter declaratory judgment that:
17

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 18 of 19

(1) Defendants’ forced separation of immigrant detainees from their children is punishment that is proscribed by the Fifth Amendment;
(2) Defendants’ forced separation of immigrant detainees from their children interferes with family integrity in violation of the Fifth Amendment;
(3) Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights when they separated them from their children; and
(4) Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights when Defendants maintained separation of Plaintiffs from their children after the conclusion of criminal proceedings against them;
(d) order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees; and (e) all other relief that the Court deems just and proper to ensure that Defendants act according to law.

June 20, 2018

Respectfully submitted, TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
________________________________ Jerome Wesevich
D.D.C. Attorney No. TX0125 Amanda Chisholm
Texas Bar No. 24040684 Peter McGraw
Texas Bar No. 24081036 1331 Texas Avenue El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 585-5120 jwesevich@trla.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18

Case 1:18-cv-01458 Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 19 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF INDIGENT REPRESENTATION
In accord with D.D.C. Local Rule 83.2(g), all attorneys signing this pleading certify that they are members in good standing of the bar of the Texas Supreme Court, and that they are employed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. to represent indigent clients at no cost to the clients, including all Plaintiffs named in the above lawsuit.
/s/ ________________________________ Jerome Wesevich Amanda Chisholm Peter McGraw
19

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

M.G.U., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-1458 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Two months ago, plaintiff E.F. and her nine-year-old son fled threats of violence in Guatemala to pursue asylum in the United States. After crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on May 14, 2018, they were initially detained together, but then forcibly separated the next day and detained in facilities hundreds of miles apart. Ms. E.F. has not seen her son since then. On June 20, 2018, Ms. E.F. and two other parents who had also been separated from their children filed this civil action. On June 26, 2018, they moved for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate reunification with their children. The Court set an expedited briefing schedule and held a hearing on July 12, 2018. At the hearing, counsel for Ms. E.F. represented that Ms. E.F. was awaiting a decision on the review of her negative credible fear determination by an immigration judge. Counsel for defendants explained that if the immigration judge were to affirm the negative credible fear determination and deny Ms. E.F.’s asylum application, she would be subject to a final order of removal. The order of removal would leave her at risk of being immediately removed from the United States without her son before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 7
At the hearing, counsel for Ms. E.F. orally moved for an order prohibiting defendants from removing Ms. E.F. from the United States without her son prior to the Court’s decision on her preliminary injunction motion.
After the hearing, on July 13, 2018, defendants informed the Court that an immigration judge had affirmed Ms. E.F.’s negative credible fear determination. See July 13, 2018 Status Report [Dkt. No. 39]. As a result, Ms. E.F. is now subject to a final order of removal. Defendants have not provided a timeline for when her removal from the United States might take place, but they have voluntarily agreed to stay Ms. E.F.’s removal until tomorrow, July 17, 2018. See id. Defendants have provided no assurance that Ms. E.F. and her nine-year-old son will be reunited before Ms. E.F. is removed from the country.
What deeply troubles the Court at this stage is the risk that Ms. E.F. will be removed from the United States without her young son and without her valid consent to be removed without her son, before the Court has an opportunity to rule on her preliminary injunction motion seeking immediate reunification with him. The recent representations made by the United States in the class action pending before Judge Dana M. Sabraw in federal court in San Diego only heighten this concern. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 104, at 4-5 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) (confirming that twelve immigrant parents have been removed without their children thus far). Immediate reunification will be impossible if Ms. E.F. is removed from the United States while her son remains detained here. And defendants have declined to commit to keeping Ms. E.F. in the United States until after the Court rules on the preliminary injunction motion.
In light of the urgent need to preserve the status quo until after the Court has made a determination on the merits of Ms. E.F.’s preliminary injunction motion, the Court will
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 7
construe her lawyer’s oral motion for an order that she not be removed from the country before she is reunited with her son, as a motion for a temporary restraining order. See Barrow v. Graham, 124 F. Supp. 2d 714, 715-17 (D.D.C. 2000); see also Nw. Forest Workers Ass’n v. Lyng, No. 87-1487, 1988 WL 268171, at *2-3 (D.D.C. June 29, 1988) (granting interim relief not to deport or institute deportation proceedings against seasonal agricultural workers pending adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims). And upon consideration of the arguments made by counsel in their briefs and in open court, as well as the entire record in this case, the Court will grant Ms. E.F.’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo for a limited period of time until the Court has an opportunity to pass on the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Barrow v. Graham, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 715-16 (citing Warner Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) and Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th Cir. 1982)). While the Court must still consider the traditional four-part test for injunctive relief even at the temporary restraining order stage, the short duration of such an order and the imminence of the harm may justify the grant of a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo. See Barrow v. Graham, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 716-17.
For purposes of this motion, it suffices to say that Ms. E.F. likely will succeed on the merits of her substantive due process claim. The Supreme Court has made clear that parents have a liberty interest in family association or family integrity, and in the care, custody, and control of their children. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). At this stage, Ms. E.F. is likely to succeed on her claim that her continued forcible separation from her young child absent a determination that she is either unfit or presents a danger to her child, violates due process. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and
3

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 4 of 7
Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, 2018 WL 3129486, at *7-9 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018); see also Memorandum Opinion and Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 10-15 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2018).
Moreover, the parties agree that Ms. E.F. is a member of the class in the action pending before Judge Sabraw. In that case, Judge Sabraw granted a class-wide preliminary injunction and ordered that defendants “reunify all Class Members with their minor children age five (5) and older within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order” absent certain circumstances that do not apply here. Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 2018 WL 3129486, at *12. Defendants have repeatedly represented to this Court, in both their papers and at the July 12 hearing, that they intend to comply with Judge Sabraw’s thirty-day timeline for reunification of children age five and above. They have made a similar commitment to Judge Sabraw. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 109, at 1 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2018). Given the likelihood that Ms. E.F. will prevail on her substantive due process claim in this Court, the likelihood of success prong of the four-part test weighs heavily in favor of granting the temporary restraining order.
Ms. E.F. faces potentially imminent and irreparable harm if the Court does not grant the requested relief and prohibit her removal from the country without her son prior to reunification. In the class action, Judge Sabraw specifically enjoined defendants from “removing any Class Members without their child, unless the Class Member affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child prior to the Class Member’s [removal].” Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 2018 WL 3129486, at *12; see also Memorandum Opinion and Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 30. Here, Ms. E.F. has presented credible evidence that she does not consent to removal without her son prior to reunification.
4

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 5 of 7
The Court credits her declarations signed on July 11, 2018 and July 13, 2018 confirming her desire not to be removed without her son. In her declarations, she states that “I want to be reunited with my son,” July 11, 2018 Declaration of E.F. at ¶ 2 [Dkt. No. 36-3], and that “[i]f I am deported, I want to hug my nine-year old boy before I go,” July 13, 2018 Declaration of E.F. at ¶ 4 [Dkt. No. 40-1].
Defendants respond that on June 28, 2018, Ms. E.F. placed her initials on a one-page form in which she purports to consent to removal without her son prior to reunification. See June 28, 2018 Parent/Child Reunification Request [Dkt. No. 36-2]. Although the parties have provided few details about the circumstances under which this one-page form was presented to and initialed by Ms. E.F., Ms. E.F. has presented evidence that she “is not able to read or write in English” and that she is “not fully literate in Spanish.” See July 13, 2018 Declaration of Ashley N. Martinez at ¶ 4 [Dkt. No. 41-1]. She has also explained that she did not fully understand the purpose of the form, believing that completing it would allow her son to stay with his uncle until she was released from detention. See July 11, 2018 Declaration of E.F. at ¶¶ 4-6 [Dkt. No. 36-3]. In light of these representations, the Court does not credit the form in which Ms. E.F. purports to decline reunification with her son prior to removal. Simply put, the form is not worth the paper it is written on.
If Ms. E.F. were to be removed on the basis of her negative credible fear determination and invalid waiver, she likely will lose the ability to be immediately reunified with her son without the benefit of any due process protections. Such harm would undoubtedly be irreparable. Although defendants have repeatedly stated that they will attempt to comply – or more recently, are “committed” to complying, see Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 109, at 1 – with Judge Sabraw’s thirty-day timeline for
5

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 6 of 7
reunification of children age five and above on or before July 26, 2018, defendants have refused to assure this Court that they will not seek to remove Ms. E.F. without her son prior to that date. Because defendants have declined to voluntarily provide an administrative stay of the removal order beyond July 17, 2018, there is no guarantee that Ms. E.F. will be permitted to remain in the country long enough to be reunited with her son in the event that the Court orders such reunification to occur. See Doe v. Mattis, 288 F. Supp. 3d 195, 200 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 889 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Petitioners Seeking Habeas Corpus Relief in Relationship to Prior Detentions at Guantanamo Bay, 700 F. Supp. 2d 119, 126 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Chaman v. Obama, 2012 WL 3797596 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 10, 2012)).
The balance of equities and the public interest also favor granting Ms. E.F.’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Defendants may be concerned that a temporary restraining order will disrupt the process in place for immigration authorities to make removal decisions and may challenge their authority to do so. The temporary restraining order requested here, however, would merely require defendants to briefly stay their hand while the Court assesses the merits of Ms. E.F.’s due process claim. All that is involved is the preservation of the status quo for a short period of time until the Court can make a determination on the merits, so any possible disruption to defendants will be minimal. And while there may be an interest in allowing the process for removal to run its course without the intervention of the courts, there is a much weightier interest in ensuring that defendants do not impermissibly deprive immigrant parents of their due process rights under the Constitution.
Given the danger that, upon removal, the Court could lose the ability to adjudicate Ms. E.F.’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking reunification, it follows that Ms. E.F.’s removal from the country without her son could undermine her rights. In the absence of a
6

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 44 Filed 07/16/18 Page 7 of 7
commitment from defendants to stay their hand, the Court must act to preserve the status quo and prevent Ms. E.F.’s imminent removal under these circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them, are temporarily restrained from removing from the United States plaintiff E.F. until further order of this Court. SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 16, 2018

__________/s/______________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

7

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

M.G.U., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-1458 (PLF)

OPINION The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Dkt. No. 13], requiring the United States government to immediately reunify plaintiff E.F. with her nine-year-old son, from whom she was forcibly separated shortly after crossing the United States-Mexico border over two months ago. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ filings, the relevant legal authorities, the arguments of counsel at a hearing on July 12, 2018, and the entire record in this case, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion by separate Order earlier today. This Opinion explains the reasons for that Order.1

1

The Court has reviewed the following documents and accompanying exhibits in

connection with the pending motion: Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]; Plaintiffs’ Application

for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO App.”) [Dkt. No. 8]; Plaintiffs’ Errata to TRO

Application [Dkt. No. 12]; Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No.

13]; Defendants’ Opposition to TRO Application (“TRO Opp’n”) [Dkt. No. 16]; Plaintiffs’

Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 25]; July 5, 2018 Joint Status Report

[Dkt. No. 26]; Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion (“Opp’n”) [Dkt. No.

27]; Defendants’ Opposition to Expedited Discovery Motion [Dkt. No. 28]; Plaintiffs’ Reply to

Expedited Discovery Motion [Dkt. No. 29]; July 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order

(“July 9, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order”) [Dkt. No. 30]; Plaintiffs’ Reply to Preliminary Injunction

Motion (“Reply”) [Dkt. No. 31]; Plaintiffs’ First Notice of Supplementary Evidence (“Pl. First

Suppl.”) [Dkt. No. 36]; Plaintiffs’ Notice Regarding Damus v. Nielsen [Dkt. No. 37]; Plaintiffs’

Second Notice of Supplementary Evidence (“Pl. Second Suppl.”) [Dkt. No. 38]; Defendants’

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 2 of 21
I. BACKGROUND A. Factual History On April 6, 2018, the Attorney General of the United States announced a “zero-tolerance” immigration policy, under which all immigrant parents unlawfully crossing the United States-Mexico border with their young children would be subject to criminal prosecution and separated from their children. See Compl. Exs. 3 and 4. Following widespread criticism over the separation of immigrant families, on June 20, 2018, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order requiring immigrant parents and their children who are apprehended at the border to remain together during the pendency of their criminal or immigration proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. See Mot. Ex. 1 at Section 3. The Executive Order did not, however, address the reunification of the more than 2,000 children whom the government had already separated from their parents. Plaintiffs in this action are three immigrant parents who were separated from their young children after crossing the United States-Mexico border prior to the issuance of the Executive Order on June 20, 2018. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, two of the plaintiffs, M.G.U. and A.P.F., were recently reunified with their children after spending many weeks apart. The one remaining plaintiff, E.F., is presently detained in Texas, while her nine-year-old son is detained in New York. Ms. E.F. is being held solely as a civil immigration detainee and not in association with any criminal charge or conviction. There is no evidence suggesting that Ms.
July 13, 2018 Status Report [Dkt. No. 39]; Plaintiffs’ July 13, 2018 Status Report [Dkt. No. 40]; Plaintiffs’ July 13, 2018 Supplemental Status Report (“July 13, 2018 Suppl. Report”) [Dkt. No. 41]; July 16, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding TRO Application (“July 16, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order Regarding TRO”) [Dkt. No. 42]; Defendants’ Notice of Additional Filings [Dkt. No. 43]; July 16, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Removal (“July 16, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order Regarding Removal”) [Dkt. No. 44]; July 17, 2018 Status Report [Dkt. No. 45]; and July 18, 2018 Order Regarding Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 46].
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 3 of 21

E.F. is not the biological mother of her son. Nor is there any suggestion that she is an unfit parent or poses a danger to her son.
Plaintiff E.F. and her son fled threats of violence in Guatemala to pursue asylum in the United States. See Compl. ¶¶ 78, 81. On May 14, 2018, they entered the United States near Presidio, Texas and presented themselves to immigration officials in order to seek asylum. See id. ¶ 81. They were arrested. See id. Although they were initially detained together, they were forcibly separated the next day, on May 15, 2018. See id. ¶ 82. Unbeknownst to Ms. E.F., her son was deemed an “unaccompanied minor” because he had “no parent or legal guardian in the United States . . . available to provide care and physical custody.” Opp’n at 6-7. As a result, he was transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) and detained in a separate facility. See id.2
Three weeks later on June 6, 2018, Ms. E.F. was convicted at trial of misdemeanor improper entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) and sentenced to time served. See Compl. ¶¶ 85-86. She was then transferred to immigration detention for removal proceedings and consideration of her asylum application. See Opp’n at 6-7. An immigration officer later made a negative credible fear determination, which an immigration judge affirmed. See July 13, 2018 Status Report. Based on that determination, Ms. E.F.’s asylum application was denied and

2

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), Pub. L. No.

110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008), provides that “the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien

children, including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the

responsibility of” the Department of Health and Human Services, and its sub-agency, ORR. See

8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1). An “unaccompanied alien child” is a child under eighteen years of age

with no lawful immigration status in the United States who has neither a parent or legal guardian

in the United States, nor a parent or legal guardian in the United States “available to provide care

and physical custody.” See 6 U.S.C § 279(g)(2). Plaintiffs’ children, however, are not true

unaccompanied minors within the meaning of the statute; they were rendered unaccompanied by

the unilateral and likely unconstitutional actions of defendants. See Order, Ms. L. v. U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 101, at 2-3 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018); see

also D.B. v. Cardall, 826 F.3d 721, 744-50 (4th Cir. 2016) (Floyd, J., dissenting).

3

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 4 of 21
she is now subject to a final order of removal. See id. Ms. E.F. is currently detained in El Paso, Texas and is awaiting removal. See id.; July 13, 2018 Suppl. Report Ex. 1, Decl. of Ashley N. Martinez at ¶ 2.
Ms. E.F. has not seen her nine-year-old son since May 15, 2018. See Mot. at 2. More than a month after their initial separation, she first learned that her son is in a foster care facility in New York. See TRO Opp’n Ex. 1. She has spoken to her son only a few times over the phone for about five minutes each time. See TRO App. Ex. 2, June 21, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 6. Each time they have spoken, “he only cries.” See id. ¶ 8. “[H]e only wants to know when he will see me again so it’s hard for him to focus on anything else.” See id. ¶ 7. During one conversation, he told his mother that he “had a nosebleed” but was “too scared to tell anyone.” See id. ¶ 10. Ms. E.F. recalls that “my son used to be such a happy child who was always joking around with me. Now he just seems depressed[.]” See id. ¶ 9. As she explains in her declaration, “I am very worried about my son. Since we were separated, I feel lonely and desperate. I have had trouble eating and sleeping [.]” See Mot. Ex. 5, June 15, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 5. She states that “I wake up from my sleep crying because I remember that he was taken from me.” See TRO App. Ex. 2, June 21, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 18. She urges that “I want to be reunited with my son[.]” See Pl. First Suppl. Ex. 3, July 11, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 2.
B. Procedural History Plaintiffs brought suit on June 20, 2018 against certain federal agencies and officials responsible for enforcing immigration laws and regulations. See Compl. ¶¶ 5-19. In the complaint, Ms. E.F. alleges that her continued separation from her minor son, absent a showing that she is an unfit parent or otherwise presents a danger to her son, violates her substantive due
4

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 5 of 21
process right to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See id. ¶¶ 101-04.
On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order requiring defendants, inter alia, to “immediately provide reliable, daily information” about the well-being of their children. See TRO Mot. at 2. After ordering expedited briefing, the Court held a hearing on the TRO application on June 27, 2018. At the hearing, defendants represented that they had provided, or would soon provide, certain information that plaintiffs had requested. The Court therefore held the TRO application in abeyance and suggested that the parties meet and confer and provide a joint status report to the Court. The parties provided that joint status report on July 5, 2018 and represented that they had resolved several issues pertaining to the TRO application, but that some matters were still outstanding. On July 16, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ TRO application with respect to certain outstanding requests. See July 16, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order Regarding TRO (ordering defendants to “facilitate daily telephone calls” between each plaintiff and his or her child; “facilitate at least one telephone call per week” between each plaintiff and the case manager for each plaintiff’s child; and “provide the address for the home or facility” where Ms. E.F.’s child is currently detained).
On June 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate reunification with their children. The Court set an expedited briefing schedule and held a hearing on July 12, 2018. In anticipation of that hearing, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for expedited discovery on July 3, 2018, which the Court granted in part on July 9, 2018. See July 9, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order (ordering defendants to provide, inter alia, information regarding plans to reunify plaintiffs and their children). Following the hearing, the Court entered an order prohibiting defendants from removing Ms. E.F. from the United States prior to the
5

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 6 of 21
Court’s decision on her preliminary injunction motion and until further order of the Court. See July 16, 2018 Mem. Op. & Order Regarding Removal.
Meanwhile, on June 26, 2018, Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a class-wide preliminary injunction requiring the government to reunify children under the age of five with their parents by July 10, 2018, and those age five and over by July 26, 2018. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, 2018 WL 3129486 at *11-12 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). The class is defined to include: “All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the [Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)], and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” Id. at *3 n.5. The class does not include “parents with criminal history or communicable disease, or those apprehended in the interior of the country or subject to the [Executive Order].” See id.
II. LEGAL STANDARD “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A party seeking preliminary relief must make a “clear showing that four factors, taken together, warrant relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in its favor, and accord with the public interest.” League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). The moving party bears the burden of persuasion and must demonstrate, “by a clear showing,” that the requested relief is warranted. Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC v.
6

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 7 of 21
Reyes, 736 F. Supp. 2d 192, 197 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. NRDC, courts weighed these factors on a “sliding scale,” allowing “an unusually strong showing on one of the factors” to overcome a weaker showing on another. Damus v. Nielsen, No. 18-00578, 2018 WL 3232515, at *4 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018) (quoting Davis v. PBGC, 571 F.3d 1288, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). This Circuit has hinted, though not held, that Winter v. NRDC – which overturned the Ninth Circuit’s “possibility of irreparable harm” standard – establishes that “likelihood of irreparable harm” and “likelihood of success” are “independent, free-standing requirement[s].” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Davis v. PBGC, 571 F.3d at 1296 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)); see League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d at 7 (declining to address whether “sliding scale” approach is valid after Winter v. NRDC). Also unresolved is the related question of “whether, in cases where the other three factors strongly favor issuing an injunction, a plaintiff need only raise a serious legal question on the merits.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Regardless of the extent to which showings of irreparable harm and success on the merits can be diminished, however, it is clear that where the plaintiff can show neither harm nor likelihood of success, no relief is warranted. See Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 205 F. Supp. 3d 4, 26 (D.D.C. 2016).
III. DISCUSSION Ms. E.F. seeks a preliminary injunction directing defendants to immediately reunify her with her son. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the circumstances
7

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 8 of 21
presented here merit this extraordinary form of relief, and therefore has ordered defendants to reunify Ms. E.F. with her son on or before midnight on Friday, July 20, 2018.
A. Threshold Matters Before turning to the four preliminary injunction factors, the Court addresses three threshold matters. First, defendants contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because Ms. E.F. has not pled a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Opp’n at 10. Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, however, explicitly waives sovereign immunity for claims – even non-APA claims, such as the claims at issue here – brought directly under the Constitution. See Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 185-87 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Second, defendants assert that neither Ms. E.F. nor her son is in custody within the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants argue that if Ms. E.F. had sought a writ of habeas corpus, the Court would lack jurisdiction to grant it. See Opp’n at 11. Ms. E.F., however, has not sought a writ of habeas corpus in this action. And the Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on her substantive due process claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). In addition, defendants contend that if Ms. E.F. had sought an order directing her release from detention on parole pending completion of her immigration proceedings, the Court would lack jurisdiction to grant it. See Opp’n at 11-12; Damus v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 3232515, at *5 (permitting review of parole methodologies that do not require review of individual parole decisions). But Ms. E.F. has not sought any such order. Rather, she has sought immediate reunification with her son, which can be accomplished, for example, by temporarily detaining families together in family residential
8

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 9 of 21
facilities. See Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1159-60 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
Third, defendants suggest that the motion for a preliminary injunction is subject to a heightened standard, under which Ms. E.F. must “clearly” show that she is entitled to relief or that “extreme or very serious damage” will result from the denial of the injunction. See Opp’n at 8 (quoting Columbia Hosp. for Women Found., Inc. v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1997), aff’d, 159 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). It is true that some courts in this District have recognized that if the requested relief “would alter, not preserve, the status quo,” the movant’s claim is subject to a somewhat higher standard. See, e.g., Aracely v. Nielsen, No. 17-1976, 2018 WL 3243977, at *5 (D.D.C. July 3, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice, 15 F. Supp. 3d 32, 39 (D.D.C. 2014). But the requested preliminary injunction would preserve, rather than alter, the status quo – that is, the “last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Consarc Corp. v. U.S. Treasury Dept. of Foreign Assets Control, 71 F.3d 909, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Given that Ms. E.F. has contested her separation from the moment that she was separated from her son, the last uncontested status occurred when she and her son approached immigration officials together near the United States-Mexico border. In any event, even if a heightened standard were appropriate, Ms. E.F. satisfies the higher standard proposed by defendants for the reasons given below.
The Court now turns to the four preliminary injunction factors.
B. The Four Preliminary Injunction Factors Upon careful review of the parties’ submissions, and in particular, the declarations submitted by Ms. E.F. and several medical experts, the Court concludes that Ms.
9

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 10 of 21
E.F. easily meets her burden to show likely success on the merits and irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in her favor, thus warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits While plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction have the burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merits, they are not required to prove their case in full at the preliminary injunction stage, but only such portions that enable them to obtain the injunctive relief that they seek. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). At this preliminary stage, the Court easily concludes that Ms. E.F. is likely to succeed on her claim that her continued separation from her minor son, absent a determination that she is either an unfit parent or presents a danger to her son, violates her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 2018 WL 3129486, at *7-9; see also Mem. Op. & Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 10-15 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2018). The Fifth Amendment mandates that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. Due process protects noncitizens who are on U.S. soil. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). The due process guarantee has both procedural and substantive components. Only the substantive component is at issue here. Substantive due process bars government interference with certain fundamental rights “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). There are “two strands of the substantive due process doctrine.” D.B. v.
10

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 11 of 21
Cardall, 826 F.3d at 740; see Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 260, 276-78 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716, 728 n.6 (6th Cir. 2011); Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762, 769 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2001). The first strand protects rights that are “fundamental,” whereas the second “protects against the exercise of governmental power that shocks the conscience.” D.B. v. Cardall, 826 F.3d at 740; see Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 276-78.
The Supreme Court has made clear that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in family integrity, and in the care, custody, and control of their children. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000) (“The liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978) (“We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). Ms. E.F. contends that her continued separation from her son, absent a determination that she is either an unfit parent or presents a danger to her son, impermissibly interferes with her fundamental right to family integrity. See Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that a substantive due process claim requires a “careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest). Framed in this manner, Ms. E.F. likely will show that defendants’ actions implicate a fundamental liberty interest that has been infringed. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and
11

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 12 of 21

Customs Enf’t, 2018 WL 3129486, at *7-9; Mem. Op. & Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 10-15.3
Defendants respond that “the extent of any right that parents may have based in a relationship with their children (or vice versa) necessarily depends on the circumstances of a particular case.” Opp’n at 13. According to defendants, because Ms. E.F. is in lawful immigration custody, she is “unavailable to provide care and physical custody” for purposes of the TVPRA, and therefore custody of her son must be transferred to ORR and he must be detained in a separate facility from his mother. See id. The Court disagrees. See supra at 3 n.2. The fact that Ms. E.F. is lawfully detained in immigration custody does not eliminate her due process right to family integrity. The statutes cited by defendants to separate Ms. E.F. from her son explicitly require defendants to “promptly [place unaccompanied alien children] in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A). Rather than placing Ms. E.F.’s son in the least restrictive setting, defendants have continued to separate Ms. E.F. and her son in a manner that absolutely prevents her from providing care to, or exercising custody and control over, her son. Ms. E.F. therefore has demonstrated that defendants’ actions likely implicate her right to family integrity.
Substantial governmental burdens on family integrity are subject to strict scrutiny review, and they survive only if the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See Goings v. Court Servs. & Offender Supervision Agency, 786 F. Supp. 2d 48, 70 (D.D.C. 2011) (granting preliminary injunction where plaintiff’s substantive due process claim premised on no-contact order prohibiting communication with his children likely would not

3

To be clear, Ms. E.F. does not challenge her initial criminal detention pending

prosecution for improper entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Rather, she challenges her continued

separation from her son now that she has been transferred from criminal detention to civil

immigration detention pending removal proceedings.

12

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 13 of 21
survive strict scrutiny review); see also Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d at 702 (holding that the Due Process Clause “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests . . . including the rights to . . . direct the education and upbringing of one’s children” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Franz v. United States, 707 F.2d 582, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (severance of relationship between parent and his child will survive constitutional scrutiny only if: (1) the government’s interest is compelling; (2) there is a particularized showing of the government’s interest in terminating the parental relationship; (3) it is impossible to accomplish that interest in a less restrictive way; and (4) the parties are afforded procedural due process protections); U.S. v. Breeden, No. 16-0008, 2016 WL 8943168, at *2 (D.D.C. June 3, 2016); U.S. v. Godoy, No. 10-0016, 2014 WL 12618708, at *5 (D.D.C. June 13, 2014).4
There is no question that defendants have directly and substantially burdened Ms. E.F.’s right to family integrity. Defendants have continued to detain Ms. E.F. and her son in separate facilities for many weeks with only periodic phone calls. See Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 346 (4th Cir. 1994) (“The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious impingement on [parental] rights.”). The separation imposed by defendants absolutely precludes Ms. E.F.’s involvement in any aspect of her son’s care, custody, and control, from religion to education. And the forced separation prevents her from

4

To the extent that Ms. E.F.’s claim is properly analyzed under the “shock the

conscience” standard set forth in City of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847 n.8 (1998),

defendants’ actions also fail under that standard for the same reasons described by Judge Sabraw

in the class action. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 2018 WL 3129486, at

*7-9; see also Mem. Op. & Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 10-15; Barnes v. District

of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 276-78.

13

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 14 of 21
expressing love for, and comfort to, her son – comfort that he surely needs as he endures the bewildering experience of detention.
While the need to protect children from unfit parents is a well-recognized compelling reason for burdening family integrity, defendants must make at least some showing of parental unfitness in order to establish such a compelling state interest. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. at 255 (“We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended [i]f a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d at 269-70. Here, there is no evidence suggesting that Ms. E.F. is not the biological mother of her son. Nor is there any suggestion that she is an unfit mother or poses a danger to her son.
Defendants contend that the separation occurred because plaintiffs were subject to lawful prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). See Opp’n at 14. They also argue that Ms. E.F. remains separated from her son because she is subject to mandatory detention pending removal proceedings. Defendants do not dispute, however, that all criminal proceedings have concluded and that Ms. E.F. has served her accompanying sentence. And defendants do not dispute that Ms. E.F.’s son has not been charged with any crime. So there is no criminal law enforcement reason to maintain the separation of Ms. E.F. and her son. Moreover, the fact that Ms. E.F. is subject to mandatory immigration detention does not explain why she must be detained separately from her son. The same goal of mandatory detention can be accomplished, for example, by temporarily detaining families together in family residential facilities. See Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1159-60.
14

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 15 of 21
While defendants have a legitimate interest in enforcing the immigration laws and deterring unlawful immigration, nothing in federal law suggests that deterring immigration by indefinitely separating families once the parents have been transferred to immigration custody is a compelling or legitimate government objective. Moreover, defendants’ forced separation policy is overbroad because it equally deters both lawful and unlawful conduct. As Judge Boasberg recently put it in a related context: “[The government] maintains that one particular individual may be civilly detained for the sake of sending a message of deterrence to other Central American individuals who may be considering immigration. This appears to be out of line with analogous Supreme Court decisions.” R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 188-89 (D.D.C. 2015). Indeed, the Executive Order names a less restrictive alternative: temporarily detaining parents together with their children. See Mot. Ex. 1 at Section 3(c). The fact that immigration officials administered the same statutes and regulations through 2017 without routinely separating families lends further support to the conclusion that defendants’ actions are not narrowly tailored. The “zero-tolerance” immigration policy therefore is likely not the least restrictive means for furthering defendants’ purported interest in enforcing the immigration laws.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Ms. E.F. likely will succeed on her substantive due process claim premised on her constitutional right to family integrity.
2. Irreparable Harm As to whether Ms. E.F. is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, there can be no dispute. Ms. E.F. desperately wants to be reunited with her son. See Pl. First Suppl. Ex. 3, July 11, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 2. Ms. E.F. has offered overwhelming evidence in her own words and from medical experts describing the grave and
15

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 16 of 21
lasting consequences of separating parents from their young children. Defendants have not attempted to refute this evidence. For good reason.
The record in this case demonstrates that Ms. E.F.’s separation from her son has been excruciating. She has not seen her son in over two months. See Mot. Ex. 5, June 15, 2018 Decl. of E.F. at ¶ 5. In the few, fleeting telephone conversations she has been able to arrange with her son, “he only cries.” See TRO App. Ex. 2, June 21, 2018 Decl. of E.F. ¶ 8. He once told her that he had a nosebleed, but was too scared to tell anyone. See id. ¶ 10. Amid her constant anguish, she has been unable to eat or sleep. See id. ¶ 17. Keeping Ms. E.F. separated from her son, in a facility where she has little or no direct access to basic information about her son’s health or general well-being, plainly causes irreparable harm. Her son is innocent of any wrongful conduct, and she is, at most, guilty of a petty misdemeanor. See United States v. Dominguez-Portillo, No. 17-4409, 2018 WL 315759, at *8 n.14 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2018) (describing violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) as “quite literally one of the least serious federal offenses”).
The panic and desperation that Ms. E.F. has endured will no doubt sound familiar to anyone who has ever, even momentarily, lost sight of a child entrusted to his or her care. But counsel for plaintiffs have also offered evidence from medical experts describing the profound and long-term consequences that separation can have on a child’s well-being, safety, and development. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, detained immigrant children may experience high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. See Compl. Ex. 7, American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement at 8; see also Mot. Ex. 10, June 15, 2018 Decl. of Dr. Marsha R. Griffin at ¶ 9 (“There may be nothing more frightening for a vulnerable child than to be forcibly separated from their parent. Even this short-term separation
16

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 17 of 21
will have lasting impact on their physical and emotional well-being.”). Children may also develop toxic stress, a form of extreme and repetitive stress that adversely affects brain development and is correlated with an increased risk of developing chronic mental health problems, as well as behavioral problems. See, e.g., Mot. Ex. 11, June 15, 2018 Decl. of Ms. Julie M. Linton at ¶ 4; Mot. Ex. 12, June 18, 2018 Decl. of Dr. Alan Shapiro at ¶ 14. Furthermore, the harm that develops during detention “does not necessarily resolve once the detainee is freed,” as children may experience “developmental delay and poor psychological adjustment, potentially affecting functioning in school and socially.” TRO App. Ex. 5, June 21, 2018 Decl. of Dr. Lisa R. Fortuna at ¶¶ 12-14.
As for parents, detained adult asylum seekers may develop musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and neurologic symptoms. See Compl. Ex. 7, Policy Statement of American Academy of Pediatricians at 8. Being detained without information can also induce “profound hopelessness, despair, depression and even suicidal urges.” TRO App. Ex. 5, June 21, 2018 Decl. of Dr. Lisa R. Fortuna at ¶ 12. Aside from these mental and physical symptoms, parents often face difficulty parenting their children after a period of forced separation. See Mot. Ex. 10, June 15, 2018 Decl. of Dr. Marsha R. Griffin at ¶ 10 (“Separation of children from their parents threatens the parent-child relationship, especially if the child believes that the parent should have been capable of preventing the separation and thus any imagined or real subsequent injury.”).5

5

Not only does forced family separation cause severe emotional harm, but it also

forces parents and children to make critical legal decisions in isolation from one another. See

Mot. Ex. 7, June 25, 2018 Decl. of Chris Carlin at ¶ 10; United States v. Dominguez-Portillo,

2018 WL 315759, at *1-2 (explaining that defendants “had not received any paperwork or

information concerning the whereabouts or well-being of” their children).

17

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 18 of 21
Separation irreparably harms Ms. E.F. and her son every minute it persists. This evidence, combined with the constitutional violation alleged, shows that Ms. E.F. is not only likely – but certain – to suffer irreparable injury if the requested preliminary injunction does not issue.
3. The Balance of Equities In considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court must “balance the competing claims of injury and . . . consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Texas Children’s Hosp. v. Burwell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 224, 245 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where an injunction will “not substantially injure other interested parties,” the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor. League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d at 12 (citation omitted). Defendants “cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice.” Open Communities Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148, 179 (D.D.C. 2017). As discussed, the harm to Ms. E.F. and her son is obvious and intense. Every additional day of separation causes irreparable harm. Lack of information is but one necessary consequence of separation. Another consequence of separation is lasting damage to the child’s well-being and his relationship with his mother. And the loss of constitutional freedoms, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Mills v. District of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.D.C. 2009) (citation omitted). Defendants contend that affording the relief sought by Ms. E.F. in this action – immediate reunification – would interfere with their ongoing efforts to reunify all class members with their children by July 26, 2018, as required by the preliminary injunction issued in the class action pending before Judge Sabraw. See Opp’n at 8-10, 14. They contend that they
18

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 19 of 21
are devoting significant resources to facilitating compliance for all class members, including Ms. E.F. A conflicting order from this Court, defendants argue, may impact these compliance efforts.
While defendants have recently advised Judge Sabraw that they are committed to reuniting all of the separated children with their parents by July 26, 2018, see Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 109, at 1 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2018), defendants previously have asked for partial relief from the timelines set in the class action. The July 26, 2018 deadline for reunification, therefore, is not guaranteed. Moreover, to the extent that defendants’ concern stems from limited resources, defendants fail to make any effort to explain how an order requiring reunification of one parent with her son will hinder their compliance with the class-wide preliminary injunction. Defendants are free to commit more resources to their reunification efforts to compensate for any additional burden required to reunify one parent with her son, particularly where these family separations were the result of defendants’ own decision to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for immigrant families without specifying any basic procedure or plan to facilitate subsequent reunification. Given the gravity of the harm at issue, the need to expend resources cannot outweigh these threats to constitutional rights. The harm to defendants is self-inflicted: defendants embarked on a zero-tolerance policy, bringing misdemeanor charges and separating thousands of children from their parents, without a plan for reunification after the short, time-served sentences for improper entry into the United States.
The Court recognizes that all of the children of class members are suffering irreparable harm. But the record evidence compiled in this case demonstrates that prompt reunification of Ms. E.F. with her son will not significantly interfere with defendants’ efforts to
19

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 20 of 21
comply with the class action order. The fact is that Ms. E.F. has met her burden to show that every day of separation is causing serious and potentially permanent harm. The balance of equities therefore favors accelerated reunification of Ms. E.F. with her son.
4. The Public Interest The final factor for consideration is the public interest. The public’s interest in enforcing the criminal and immigration laws of this country would be unaffected by issuance of the requested preliminary injunction. The Executive Branch remains free to prosecute those who unlawfully enter the United States and institute removal proceedings against them. But the public also has an interest in ensuring that its government respects the rights of immigrants to family integrity while their removal proceedings are pending. See League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d at 12 (holding that there is a substantial public interest “in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations”). The public interest in upholding and protecting such rights in the circumstances presented here is served by issuing the requested injunction.
C. Removal of Plaintiffs from the United States Defendants have acknowledged that several immigrant parents have been removed from the United States without their children. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 104, at 5-6 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) (confirming that twelve parents have been removed without their children thus far). In view of that reality, Judge Sabraw has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the government from removing any parents without their children upon or after reunification until further order of that court. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 116 (S.D. Cal. July 16,
20

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 47 Filed 07/18/18 Page 21 of 21
2018); see also Mem. Op. & Order, W.S.R. v. Sessions, No. 18-4265, at 30. Consistent with that order, defendants are prohibited from removing plaintiffs E.F., M.G.U., or A.P.F from the United States until further order of this Court.
IV. CONCLUSION By Order issued earlier today, the Court granted plaintiff E.F.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants must reunify Ms. E.F. with her son and must do so on or before midnight on Friday, July 20, 2018. Defendants are prohibited from removing plaintiffs E.F., M.G.U., or A.P.F from the United States until further order of this Court. SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 18, 2018

__________/s/______________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

21

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 51 Filed 09/10/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

M.G.U, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

No. 1:18-cv-01458 (PLF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT REPORT ON CASE STATUS AS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 In accord with the Court’s minute order entered August 28, 2018, the parties respectfully submit the following report on the current status of this litigation: 1. Plaintiffs state that they have served Defendants with the Complaint pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)-(2), and will file executed summonses when the post office returns to Plaintiffs’ counsel proof of service by certified mail. Defendants acknowledge that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was served with the Complaint on September 4, 2018. 2. Plaintiffs have reached out to Defendants to ask whether this action can be resolved by consent decree. Earlier today, Plaintiffs submitted a written proposal to Defendants regarding potential resolution of the Action. Defendants continue to believe that this case is moot and should be dismissed as such, but are reviewing and considering whether Plaintiffs’ proposal presents a viable resolution of this case. 3. If the Parties are unable to resolve the remainder of this action by agreement, then Defendants intend to move to dismiss this litigation within the time allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs intend to oppose Defendants’ motion.

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 51 Filed 09/10/18 Page 2 of 3

DATE: September 10, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
/s/ Jerome Wesevich Jerome Wesevich (D.D.C. Bar No. TX0125) Amanda Chisholm (Texas Bar No. 24040684) Peter McGraw (Texas Bar No. 24081036) 1331 Texas Avenue El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 241-0534 jwesevich@trla.org achisholm@trla.org pmcgraw@trla.org
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
David J. Ball (DC Bar No. 460055) 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 (202) 223-7352 dball@paulweiss.com
Steven C. Herzog (admitted pro hac vice) Meredith A. Arfa (admitted pro hac vice) Katherine Kelly Fell (admitted pro hac vice) 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 (212) 373-3000 sherzog@paulweiss.com marfa@paulweiss.com kfell@paulweiss.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
— AND —
Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 51 Filed 09/10/18 Page 3 of 3
Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director By: Sarah B Fabian SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 Fax: (202) 616-8962 E-mail: Sarah.B.Fabian@usdoj.gov
and JESSIE K. LIU, D.C. Bar #472845 United States Attorney DANIEL F. VAN HORN D.C. BAR # 924092 Civil Chief JEREMY S. SIMON, D.C. BAR #447956 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2528 Jeremy.simon@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants
3

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 30 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

M.G.U., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-1458 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 25] in advance of the July 12, 2018 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion in part and deny it in part.1 With respect to the parties’ legal arguments, the Court finds persuasive the reasoning of Judge John D. Bates in Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88 (D.D.C. 2014). The reasonableness standard is the more appropriate standard for assessing motions for expedited discovery, particularly in cases where the expedited discovery is related to a motion for a

1

The Court has reviewed the following documents in connection with the pending

motion: Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]; Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No.

8]; Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 13]; Defendants’ Opposition to

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 16]; Plaintiffs’ Emergency

Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 25]; Joint Status Report [Dkt. No. 26]; Defendants’

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 27]; Defendants’

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 28]; and

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 29].

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 30 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 3
preliminary injunction. See id. at 97-98. Applying the reasonableness standard here, and in view of the particular circumstances of this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery [Dkt. No. 25] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall respond to the following discovery requests listed in Plaintiffs’ Expedited Discovery Requests to Defendants [Dkt. No. 25-2], on or before 12:00 p.m. on July 11, 2018: Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 2, Interrogatory No. 5, Interrogatory No. 6, Request for Production No. 1, Request for Production No. 4, Request for Admission No. 1, Request for Admission No. 2, and Request for Admission No. 5; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall be prepared to address the following discovery requests listed in Plaintiffs’ Expedited Discovery Requests to Defendants [Dkt. No. 25-2], at the hearing on July 12, 2018: Interrogatory No. 3, Interrogatory No. 4, Request for Production No. 2, Request for Production No. 3, Request for Admission No. 3, Request for Admission No. 4, Request for Admission No. 6, Request for Admission No. 7, Request for Admission No. 8, Request for Admission No. 9, and Request for Admission No. 10; and it is
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 30 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 3
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall be prepared to address the following questions at the hearing on July 12, 2018: (i) whether the adult plaintiffs are presently detained; and (ii) whether the adult plaintiffs have passed a credible fear interview in connection with their asylum applications, and if not, whether such an interview has been scheduled.
SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 9, 2018

_________/s/_______________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

3

 
 Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 42 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

M.G.U., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-1458 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) [Dkt. No. 8] filed on June 22, 2018. The matter was fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on the application on June 27, 2018. The TRO application sought specific information about plaintiffs’ children who are detained by defendants separately from their parents. At the hearing, defendants represented that they had provided or would soon provide certain of the information requested. The Court therefore held the application for a TRO in abeyance and suggested that the parties meet and confer and provide a joint status report to the Court. The parties provided that joint status report [Dkt. No. 26] on July 5, 2018 and represented that they had resolved several issues pertaining to the application, but that some matters were still outstanding. Meanwhile, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt. No. 13]. That motion was fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on that motion and on what remained of the TRO application on July 12, 2018. The Court anticipates ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction later this week.

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 42 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 3
In a filing on July 13, 2018 [Dkt. No. 40-2], plaintiffs made clear that they now request only three items from defendants pursuant to their initial TRO application. In view of the fact that the Court will soon issue its Opinion and Order with respect to the pending preliminary injunction motion, the fact that defendants have represented to Judge Dana M. Sabraw – who is presiding over the class action in federal court in San Diego – that they are committed to complying with his order to reunite all of the separated children with their parents by the court-ordered deadline of July 26, 2018, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-0428, ECF No. 109, at 1 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2018), and the fact that they have further represented to him that they anticipate reuniting up to 200 children with their parents every day from now until July 26, see id., ECF No. 107-1, ¶ 40, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 8] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as moot; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall facilitate daily telephone calls between each plaintiff and each plaintiff’s child while the plaintiff-parent and his or her child remain separated and in defendants’ custody; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall facilitate at least one telephone call per week between the case manager for each plaintiff’s child and each plaintiff, at a pre-determined time when each respective case manager and each plaintiff are available and able to access a telephone, while the plaintiff-parent and his or her child remain separated and in defendants’ custody; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 17, 2018, defendants shall provide the address for the home or facility where E.F.’s child, B.Y.A.F., is currently detained; and it is
2

Case 1:18-cv-01458-PLF Document 42 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 3

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall notify the Court promptly when plaintiff A.P.F. or plaintiff E.F. has been reunited with their children. Ordering paragraphs 2 and 3 above will be vacated upon those reunifications.
SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 16, 2018

__________/s/______________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

3