1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his 

official capacity as Secretary 

of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 21-100(EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiffs—a group of asylum-seeking families who fled to 

the United States—bring this lawsuit against Alejandro Mayorkas,1

in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, and 

various other federal government officials (“Defendants” or the 

“government”) for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq.; the Foreign 

Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231 note; and the Public Health Service Act of 1944, 42 U.S.C 

§ 201, et seq. Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification and Motion for Classwide Preliminary 

1 Alejandro Mayorkas is substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 25(d).
2

Injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 23-1; Mem. Supp. 

Pls.’ Mot. Classwide Prelim. Inj. (“Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj.”), 

ECF No. 57-1.2 Upon careful consideration of the motions, the 

responses, and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the 

entire record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide 

Preliminary Injunction.3

I. Background

A. Factual Background

1. The U.S. Asylum Process

“For almost a century, Congress has recognized that 

citizens of foreign states are sometimes forced to flee from 

persecution in their home countries, and it has been the policy 

of the United States government that this country ought to serve 

2 When citing electronic filings throughout this Memorandum 

Opinion, the Court cites to the ECF page number, not the page 

number of the filed document.

3 On August 11, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for oral argument 

on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. See Mot. Oral 

Argument, ECF No. 117. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 65(d), “[o]n 

request of the moving party together with a statement of the 

facts which make expedition essential, a hearing on an 

application for preliminary injunction shall be set by the Court 

no later than 21 days after its filing, unless the Court earlier 

decides the motion on the papers or makes a finding that a later 

hearing date will not prejudice the parties.” Here, while 

Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 5, 2021, briefing on 

the motion was stayed until August 5, 2021. See Min. Order (Aug. 

5, 2021). Thus, the Court finds that there is no prejudice to 

the parties in declining to hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion 

and shall instead decide the motion on the papers. Defendants’ 

motion for oral argument is therefore denied.
3

as a place of refuge for persons who are in such distress.” 

Kiakombua v. Wolf, 498 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11-12 (D.D.C. 2020). In 

keeping with this policy, Congress has codified various 

procedures governing how the United States evaluates and 

processes the admission requests of refugees. As relevant here, 

there are three primary protections for asylum seekers in place 

under current immigration laws.

First, in 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, Pub. L. 

No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, which amended the INA, Pub. L. No. 82-

414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) (codified as amended in sections of 8 

U.S.C.). The Refugee Act created a statutory procedure for 

refugees seeking asylum and established the standards for 

granting such requests. The INA currently governs this 

procedure, and it provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically 

present in the United States or who arrives in the United States 

(whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . . ), 

irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). The Attorney General is granted the 

discretion to grant asylum. Id. § 1158 (b)(1)(A). However, that 

relief can only be granted if the alien is a “refugee,” as 

defined by federal law. Id. Pursuant to the INA, a “refugee” is 

“any person who is outside any country of such person’s 

nationality” and who is “unable or unwilling to return to . . . 

that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 
4

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 

Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “Thus, the ‘persecution or well-founded 

fear of persecution’ standard governs the Attorney General’s 

determination [of] whether an alien is eligible for asylum.” INS 

v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428 (1987). Furthermore, even 

when a noncitizen is subject to a rapid expulsion process known 

as “expedited removal” because they fit within an established 

category of persons who can be summarily removed without full 

hearings or other process, such noncitizen can only be so 

removed if she does not have “an intention to apply for asylum 

under [8 U.S.C. § 1158] or a fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1225(b)(1)(A)(i).

Second, at the same time the Refugee Act of 1980 

established the asylum process, it amended the statutory scheme 

governing a related form of relief—“withholding of deportation”—

to remove the Attorney General’s discretion to decide whether to 

grant that form of relief. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 428–29. 

As amended by the 1980 Act, the INA “requires the Attorney 

General to withhold deportation of an alien who demonstrates 

that his ‘life or freedom would be threatened’ on account of one 

of [a list of factors] if he is deported.” Id. at 423. A grant 

of withholding is mandatory if the individual meets the 
5

statutory criteria. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 420 

(1999).

Third, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) 

provides that “[n]o State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) 

or extradite a person to another State where there are 

substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of 

being subjected to torture.” Convention Against Torture and 

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 

3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, p. 20, 1456 

U.N.T.S. 114. Congress has implemented Article 3 of CAT as part 

of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 

(“FARRA”). Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 

FARRA further declares it “the policy of the United States not 

to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return 

of any person to a country in which there are substantial 

grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being 

subjected to torture.” Id. (quoting Pub.L. No. 105–277, § 2242, 

112 Stat. 2681–761, 822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 

note).

2. COVID-19 Pandemic and the CDC Orders

Since 1893, federal law has provided federal officials with 

the authority to stem the spread of contagious diseases from 

foreign countries by prohibiting, “in whole or in part, the 

introduction of persons and property from such countries.” Act 
6

of February 15, 1893, ch. 114, § 7, 27 Stat. 449, 452 (“1893 

Act”). Under current law:

Whenever the Surgeon General determines that 

by reason of the existence of any communicable 

disease in a foreign country there is serious 

danger of the introduction of such disease 

into the United States, and that this danger 

is so increased by the introduction of persons 

or property from such country that a 

suspension of the right to introduce such 

persons and property is required in the 

interest of the public health, the Surgeon 

General, in accordance with regulations 

approved by the President, shall have the 

power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the 

introduction of persons and property from such 

countries or places as he shall designate in 

order to avert such danger, and for such

period of time as he may deem necessary for 

such purpose.

42 U.S.C. § 265 (“Section 265”). In 1966, the Surgeon General’s 

Section 265 authority was transferred to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (“HHS”), which in turn delegated this 

authority to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(“CDC”) Director. See P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 503 

(D.D.C. 2020); 31 Fed. Reg. 8855 (June 25, 1966), 80 Stat. 1610 

(1966).

On March 20, 2020, as the COVID-19 virus spread globally, 

HHS issued an interim final rule pursuant to Section 265 that 

aimed to “provide[] a procedure for CDC to suspend the 

introduction of persons from designated countries or places, if 

required, in the interest of public health.” Interim Final Rule, 
7

Control of Communicable Diseases; Foreign Quarantine: Suspension 

of Introduction of Persons Into United States From Designated 

Foreign Countries or Places for Public Health Purposes, 85 Fed. 

Reg. 16559-01, 2020 WL 1330968, (March 24, 2020) (“Interim Final 

Rule”). Pursuant to the Interim Final Rule, the CDC Director 

could “suspend the introduction of persons into the United 

States.” Id. at 16563. The Interim Final Rule stated, in 

relevant part:

(1) Introduction into the United States of 

persons from a foreign country (or one or more 

political subdivisions or regions thereof) or 

place means the movement of a person from a 

foreign country (or one or more political 

subdivisions or regions thereof) or place, or 

series of foreign countries or places, into 

the United States so as to bring the person 

into contact with persons in the United 

States, or so as to cause the contamination of 

property in the United States, in a manner 

that the Director determines to present a risk 

of transmission of a communicable disease to 

persons or property, even if the communicable 

disease has already been introduced, 

transmitted, or is spreading within the United 

States; 

(2) Serious danger of the introduction of such 

communicable disease into the United States 

means the potential for introduction of 

vectors of the communicable disease into the 

United States, even if persons or property in 

the United States are already infected or 

contaminated with the communicable disease;

and 

(3) The term “Place” includes any location 

specified by the Director, including any 
8

carrier, as that term is defined in 42 CFR 

71.1, whatever the carrier’s nationality.

Id. at 16566-67. 

The CDC’s Interim Rule went into effect immediately. Id. at 

16565. The CDC explained that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) 

of the APA, HHS had concluded that there was “good cause” to 

dispense with prior notice and comment. Id. Specifically, the 

CDC stated that “[g]iven the national emergency caused by COVID19, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public health—

and, by extension, the public interest—to delay these 

implementing regulations until a full public notice-and-comment 

process is completed.” Id. 

Pursuant to the Interim Final Rule, the CDC Director issued 

an order suspending for 30 days the introduction of “covered 

aliens,” which he defined as “persons traveling from Canada or 

Mexico (regardless of their country of origin) who would 

otherwise be introduced into a congregate setting in a land Port 

of Entry [(“POE”)] or Border Patrol station at or near the 

United States borders with Canada and Mexico.” Notice of Order 

Under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act 

Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where 

a Communicable Disease Exists, 85 Fed. Reg. 17060-02, 17061, 

2020 WL 1445906 (March 26, 2020) (“March 2020 Order”). The March 

2020 Order declared that “[i]t is necessary for the public 
9

health to immediately suspend the introduction of covered 

aliens” and “require[d] the movement of all such aliens to the 

country from which they entered the United States, or their 

country of origin, or another location as practicable, as 

rapidly as possible.” Id. at 17067. The CDC Director then 

“requested that [the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)]

implement th[e] [March 2020 Order] because CDC does not have the 

capability, resources, or personnel needed to do so.” Id. The 

CDC Director also noted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(“CBP”), a federal law enforcement agency of DHS, had already 

“developed an operational plan for implementing the order.” Id.

Soon thereafter, the CBP issued a memorandum on April 2, 

2020 establishing its procedures for implementing the March 2020 

Order. See Ex. E to Cheung Decl. (“CAPIO Memo”), ECF No. 57-5 at 

15; see also Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 14-15. The 

CAPIO Memo instructed that agents may determine whether 

individuals are subject to the CDC’s order “[b]ased on training, 

experience, physical observation, technology, questioning and 

other considerations.” CAPIO Memo, ECF No. 57-5 at 15. If an 

individual was determined to be subject to the order, they were 

to be “transported to the nearest POE and immediately returned 

to Mexico or Canada, depending on their point of transit.” Id.

at 17. Those who are “not amenable to immediate expulsion to 

Mexico or Canada, will be transported to a dedicated facility 
10

for limited holding prior to expulsion” to their home country. 

Id. The CAPIO Memo “provide[d] no instructions on medical 

screenings or other procedures for determining whether a covered 

noncitizen may have COVID-19.” Am. Compl., ECF No. 22 ¶ 60.

On April 22, 2020, the March 2020 Order was extended for an 

additional 30 days. See Extension of Order Under Sections 362 

and 365 of the Public Health Service Act; Order Suspending 

Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where a 

Communicable Disease Exists, 85 Fed. Reg. 22424-01, 2020 WL 

1923282 (April 22, 2020) (“April 2020 Order”). The order was 

then extended again on May 20, 2020 until such time that the CDC 

Director “determine[s] that the danger of further introduction 

of COVID-19 into the United States has ceased to be a serious 

danger to the public health.” Amendment and Extension of Order 

Under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act; 

Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries 

Where a Communicable Disease Exists, 85 Fed. Reg. 31503-02, 

31504, 2020 WL 2619696 (May 26, 2020) (“May 2020 Order”). 

On September 11, 2020, the CDC published its final rule. 

See Control of Communicable Diseases; Foreign Quarantine: 

Suspension of the Right To Introduce and Prohibition of 

Introduction of Persons Into United States From Designated 

Foreign Countries or Places for Public Health Purposes, 85 Fed. 

Reg. 56424-01, 2020 WL 5439721, (Sept. 11, 2020) (Effective 
11

October 13, 2020) (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule “defin[ed] the 

phrase to ‘[p]rohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction 

into the United States of persons’ to mean ‘to prevent the 

introduction of persons into the United States by suspending any 

right to introduce into the United States, physically stopping 

or restricting movement into the United States, or physically 

expelling from the United States some or all of the persons.’” 

Id. at 56445. The CDC Director then replaced the March, April, 

and May 2020 Orders with a new order on October 13, 2020. Order 

Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From Countries 

Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists, 85 Fed. Reg. 

65806, 65808 (Oct. 16, 2020) (“October 2020 Order”).

On August 2, 2021, the CDC issued its most recent order, 

“Public Health Assessment and Order Suspending the Right to 

Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable 

Communicable Disease Exists,” which replaced and superseded the 

October 2020 Order. See Public Health Assessment and Order 

Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries 

Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists (Aug. 2, 

2021), Attach. A to Notice CDC Public Health Order (“August 2021 

Order”), ECF No. 114. The August 2021 Order states that “CDC has 

determined that an Order under 42 U.S.C. § 265 remains necessary 

to protect U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent 

residents, personnel and noncitizens at the ports of entry (POE) 
12

and U.S. Border Patrol stations, and destination communities in 

the United States during the COVID-19 public health emergency.” 

Id. at 5. Thus, the August 2021 Order continues to prohibit the 

introduction of “covered noncitizens”—which is defined to 

include “family units”—into the United States along the U.S. 

land and adjacent coastal borders. Id. at 7. The Court will 

refer to the process developed by the CDC and implemented by the 

August 2021 Order as the “CDC Order” or the “Title 42 Process.”

3. CDC Order’s Effect on Asylum Seekers

Plaintiffs and the proposed class member are families from 

countries “that are among the most dangerous in the world due to 

gang, gender, family membership, and other identity-based 

violence.” Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 31. 

Plaintiffs are currently detained and in the custody of DHS. Am. 

Compl., ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 14-19. As such, they are subject to 

expulsion from the United States pursuant to the CDC Order. 

Plaintiffs assert that prior to the Title 42 Process, and 

“pursuant to longstanding immigration statutes protecting asylum 

seekers, Plaintiffs were entitled to assert claims for asylum 

and related forms of humanitarian protection, and to procedures 

Congress established to ensure the fair determination of their 

right to remain in the United States.” Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs claim 

that if they and others like them are expelled pursuant to the 

CDC Order, they “would face grave danger in their home 
13

countries.” Id. ¶ 10. According to Plaintiffs, “Defendants 

subjected approximately 21,500 members of families to the Title 

42 Process between March and December 2020.” Pls.’ Mot. Class 

Cert., ECF No. 23-1 at 10.

B. Procedural History

1. Related Litigation

On November 18, 2020, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge 

Harvey’s Report and Recommendation, provisionally granted the 

plaintiff’s motion to certify class, and issued a preliminary 

injunction barring enforcement of the Title 42 Process as to 

unaccompanied minors in P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 

520-22 (D.D.C. 2020). The Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) later stayed the preliminary 

injunction pending appeal. Order, P.J.E.S. v. Mayorkas, No. 20-

5357 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 29, 2021). 

In February 2021, the CDC issued a notice “temporarily 

except[ing] . . . unaccompanied noncitizen children” from 

expulsion under the Title 42 Process. CDC, Notice of Temporary 

Exception from Expulsion of Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children 

Encountered in the United States Pending Forthcoming Public 

Health Determination, 86 Fed. Reg. 9942-01, 2021 WL 600683 (Feb. 

11, 2021). The notice stated that CDC was “in the process of 

reassessing” the Title 42 Order and that the temporary exception 

for unaccompanied minors would “remain in effect until CDC has 
14

completed its public health assessment and published any notice 

or modified Order.” Id. Magistrate Judge Harvey and the D.C. 

Circuit granted the parties’ motion to hold the case in abeyance 

on February 24, 2021. See Min. Order (Feb. 24, 2021); Order, 

P.J.E.S. v. Mayorkas, No. 20-5357 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021).

In July 2021, the CDC issued an order “except[ing] 

unaccompanied noncitizen children . . . from the [CDC’s] October 

[13, 2020] Order.” See Order Under Sections 362 & 365 of the 

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265, 268) and 42 CFR 71.40; 

Public Health Determination Regarding an Exception for 

Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children From the Order Suspending the 

right to Introduce Certain Persons From Countries Where a 

Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists, 86 Fed. Reg. 38717, 

38718 (July 22, 2021). The CDC explained that the July 16 Order 

“supersede[s]” the notice issued on February 11, 2021. Id. at 

38720. On August 2, 2021 the CDC issued another order that 

superseded the October 2020 Order. Public Health Reassessment 

and Order Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From 

Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists, 86 

Fed. Reg. 42828-02 (Aug. 5, 2021). The July 16 Order was “made a 

part of [the August 2021 Order] and incorporated by reference as 

if fully set forth” in the August 2021 Order. Id. at 42829 n.5.
15

2. Proceedings in this Case

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 12, 2021. See 

Compl., ECF No. 1. The same day, Plaintiffs filed an emergency 

motion to stay their removal from the United States, and 

Defendants orally objected to Plaintiffs’ request during the 

hearing on the motion. See Pls.’ Emergency Mot. Stay Removal, 

ECF No. 5. The Court entered a Minute Order granting Plaintiffs’ 

emergency motion over objection “[i]n view of the arguments 

presented by Plaintiffs in their motion, the representations 

made by the Government, and for the reasons stated on the record 

at the January 12, 2021 Status Conference.” Min. Order (Jan. 12, 

2021). The Court also granted thirteen subsequent emergency 

motions to stay the removal of other families on January 19, 

2021; January 27, 2021; January 29, 2021; February 1, 2021; 

February 4, 2021; February 5, 2021; February 6, 2021; February 

9, 2021; February 18, 2021; February 19, 2021; and February 22, 

2021. See Min. Orders (Jan. 19, 2021; Jan. 27, 2021; Jan. 29, 

2021; Feb. 1, 2021; Feb. 4, 2021; Feb. 5, 2021; Feb. 6, 2021;

Feb. 9, 2021; Feb. 18, 2021; Feb. 19, 2021; Feb. 22, 2021).

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on 

January 28, 2021, see Mot. Certify Class, ECF No. 23; and they 

filed a motion for preliminary injunction on February 5, 2021, 

see Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57. Defendants filed a combined

opposition to both motions on February 17, 2021. See Defs.’ 
16

Opp’n, ECF No. 76. On February 23, 2021, the Court granted the 

parties’ joint motion to hold in abeyance Plaintiffs’ motions 

for class certification and classwide preliminary injunction. 

Min. Order (Feb. 23, 2021). The motions were held in abeyance 

until August 5, 2021, when the Court granted the parties’ motion 

for a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motions. Min. Order (Aug. 

5, 2021). On August 6, 2021, Defendants filed a supplemental 

declaration in support of their combined opposition. See 

Shahoulian Decl., ECF No. 116. Plaintiffs filed their combined 

reply brief on August 11, 2021. See Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118. 

The motions are now ripe for the Court’s adjudication.

II. Legal Standard

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] 

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his 

favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (alteration 

in original) (quoting Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 

(D.C. Cir. 2011)). Where the federal government is the opposing 

party, the balance of equities and public interest factors 

merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). A 

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only 

be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled 
17

to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citation omitted). “The purpose of a 

preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative 

positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be 

held.” Univ. of Tex. V. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). In 

this Circuit, the four factors have typically been evaluated on 

a “sliding scale,” such that if “the movant makes an unusually 

strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not 

necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” 

Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291–92 

(D.C. Cir. 2009).

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), “the D.C. 

Circuit has suggested that a positive showing on all four 

preliminary injunction factors may be required.” Holmes v. FEC, 

71 F. Supp. 3d 178, 183 n.4 (D.D.C. 2014); see also Sherley, 644 

F.3d at 393 (“[W]e read Winter at least to suggest if not to 

hold that a likelihood of success is an independent, 

freestanding requirement for a preliminary injunction.”) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted)). Nonetheless, “the 

Circuit has had no occasion to decide this question because it 

has not yet encountered a post-Winter case where a preliminary 

injunction motion survived the less rigorous sliding-scale 
18

analysis.” ConverDyn v. Moniz, 68 F. Supp. 3d 34, 46 n.2 (D.D.C. 

2014).

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

“The class action is an exception to the usual rule that 

litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named 

parties only.” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) 

(quotation marks omitted). Rule 23(a) establishes four 

requirements for class certification: (1) that “the class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”; (2) that 

“there are questions of law or fact common to the class”; (3) 

that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are 

typical of the claims or defenses of the class”; and (4) that 

“the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect 

the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition 

to satisfying Rule 23(a), a putative class must also meet one of 

the Rule 23(b) requirements. Here, Plaintiffs seek certification 

under Rule 23(b)(2), claiming that Defendants have “acted or 

refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so 

that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief 

is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Pls.’ Mot. 

Class Cert., ECF No. 23-1 at 8 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(2)).
19

“The party seeking certification bears the burden of 

persuasion, and must show that the putative class[] meet[s] the 

requirements of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence.” 

Garnett v. Zeilinger, 301 F. Supp. 3d 199, 204 (D.D.C. 2018) 

(citing Hoyte v. District of Columbia, 325 F.R.D. 485, 491 

(D.D.C. 2017)). To carry that burden, Plaintiffs must 

“affirmatively demonstrate . . . compliance with the Rule—that 

is, [they] must be prepared to prove that there are in fact

sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, 

etc.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). 

The Court must undertake a “rigorous analysis” to confirm that 

the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. 

of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 

23(b)(2), Plaintiffs have sought certification of the following 

class: “All noncitizens who (1) are or will be in the United 

States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit composed 

of at least one child under 18 years old and that child’s parent 

or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be subjected to the Title 

42 Process.” Pls.’ Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 23-1 at 7. For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs meet 

all of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirements. As 

Defendants’ sole challenge to Plaintiffs’ class certification 

motion is that the term “Title 42 Process” is not adequately 
20

defined, Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 16; the Court shall first 

address the sufficiency of the class definition before briefly 

analyzing the remaining Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) 

requirements.

1. Class Definition

“[I]t is far from clear that there exists in this 

[D]istrict a requirement that a class . . . must demonstrate 

ascertainability to merit certification.” Ramirez v. USCIS, 338 

F. Supp. 3d 1, 48 (D.D.C. 2018); see also Hoyte v. District of 

Columbia, 325 F.R.D. 485, 489 n.3 (D.D.C. 2017) (noting that 

“[t]he ascertainability requirement, while adopted by some 

courts in this district, has been recently disavowed by four 

federal appellate courts” and explaining that “the D.C. Circuit 

has not opined on the requirement”). However, the requirement of 

“definiteness” has been imposed by some courts as an “implied 

requirement” for class certification, in addition to the express 

requirements in Rule 23. See DL v. District of Columbia, 302 

F.R.D. 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2013). This “common-sense requirement,” 

Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 346 (D.D.C. 1998); is 

designed primarily to ensure the proposed class is 

administratively manageable, see Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 

1459, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “It is not designed to be a 

particularly stringent test, but plaintiffs must at least be 

able to establish that ‘the general outlines of the membership 
21

of the class are determinable at the outset of the litigation.’” 

Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 346 (quoting 7A Charles Alan Wright, 

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 1760 at 118).

“[W]here the plaintiff seeks certification of an injunctive 

class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), ‘actual membership of the class 

need not . . . be precisely delimited’ because such cases will 

not require individualized notice, opt-out rights, or individual 

damage assessments, and the defendant will be required to comply 

with the relief ordered no matter who is in the class.’” Brewer 

v. Lynch, No. 08-1747, 2015 WL 13604257, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 

2015). In those cases, the definiteness requirement is satisfied 

as long as plaintiffs can establish the “existence of a class” 

and propose a class definition that “accurately articulates ‘the 

general demarcations’ of the class of individuals who are being 

harmed by the alleged deficiencies.” See, e.g., Kenneth R. v. 

Hassan, 293 F.R.D. 254, 264 (D.N.H. 2013); see also DL, 302 

F.R.D. at 17 (“Because the rationale for precise 

ascertainability is inapposite in the 23(b)(2) context, . . . it 

is not required in cases such as this where only injunctive 

relief is sought and notice is not required.”).

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to establish 

that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) 

and Rule 23(b)(2) because the phrase “Title 42 Process” is not 
22

defined within the class definition. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at

16. They argue that, due to the lack of a definition, 

“Plaintiffs have not established that the conduct they seek to 

enjoin or declare unlawful will be ‘as to all of the class 

members or as to none of them.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(b)(2)). While Defendants concede that “it is no secret that 

Plaintiffs challenge the ‘practice of summary expulsion under 

the Title 42 Process’ and the alleged lack of access to asylum,” 

they argue that the Amended Complaint and Class Certification 

Motion include statements that suggest that the “class 

definition might include practices that Plaintiffs do not 

challenge as unlawful.” Id. at 17. Specifically, Defendants note 

that Plaintiffs refer to the “Title 42 Process” as a “system 

established in a set of agency documents—a new regulation, 

several orders, and an implementation memo,” and that the 

Amended Complaint states that, “[a]mong other things, the Title 

42 Process authorizes the summary expulsion of noncitizens, 

including vulnerable families seeking asylum in this country, 

without any of the procedural protections guaranteed by 

Congress.” Id. (quoting Am. Compl., ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 1, 3) (cleaned 

up).

The Court disagrees. As an initial matter, the Court notes 

that a “vague and ambiguous class definition” is not 

automatically “fatal[]” to a motion for class certification. 
23

Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 15-17. The case law is clear that 

the mere existence of a problematic class definition does not 

automatically mandate denial of class certification. See Brewer, 

2015 WL 13604257, at *7. Rather, “[w]hen appropriate, district 

courts may redefine classes . . . sua sponte prior to 

certification.” Borum v. Brentwood Village, LLC, 324 F.R.D. 1, 8 

(D.D.C. 2018); see also Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 578, 589-90 

(D.C. Cir. 1987) (stating that district courts may “exercise . . 

. broad discretion to redefine and reshape the proposed class to 

the point that it qualifies for certification under Rule 23”).

Here, however, the proposed class is not so poorly defined 

as to require sua sponte redefinition by the Court. First, 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, motions, and reply brief each set 

forth a fairly descriptive definition of the Title 42 Process as 

referring to the practice of summarily expelling asylum-seeking 

families since late March 2020. See Pls.’ Mot. Class Cert., ECF 

No. 23-1 at 7 (“A class action lawsuit is appropriate to 

challenge Defendants’ unlawful practice of summarily expelling 

vulnerable families with minor children under their shadow 

deportation system, referred to here as the ‘Title 42 Process’

or ‘Title 42 Policy.’”); Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 

at 9 (“Defendants moved to summarily deport [Plaintiffs] based 

on an unprecedented and unlawful expulsion process, invoking the 

public health powers of the Centers for Disease Control and 
24

Prevention (‘CDC’), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 265 (the ‘Title 42 

Process’).”); Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 29 (“Plaintiffs have 

identified and challenged ‘a uniform policy or practice’ of 

‘expulsion,’ and sought relief enjoining application of the 

challenged CDC orders to the class.”); Am. Compl., ECF No. 22 ¶ 

3 (“Among other things, the Title 42 Process authorizes the 

summary expulsion of noncitizens, including vulnerable families 

seeking asylum in this country, without any of the procedural 

protections guaranteed by Congress—even if the families show no 

signs of having COVID-19.”).

Second, although Plaintiffs do use the phrase “among other 

things” in one sentence within their Amended Complaint, 

Defendants’ argument is weakened by their own acknowledgment

that the focus of this litigation is the “‘practice of summary 

expulsion under the Title 42 Process’ and the alleged lack of 

access to asylum.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 16. 

And third, Defendants’ reliance on the Seventh Circuit case 

Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2008), is misplaced. 

In Rahman, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of citizens 

defined as “[a]ll United States citizens who now are and/or in 

the future will be subjected to detentions upon reentry to the 

United States as a result of defendants’ contested policies, 

practices and customs.” Id. at 625. However, the class 

definition did not specify what “defendants’ contested policies, 
25

practices and customs” were. Id. The Seventh Circuit therefore 

denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify, explaining that “[a] 

class of all persons now or in the future subject to unspecified 

practices may have nothing to do with the named representatives’

injuries, or what caused them.” Id. at 626. The court also noted 

that the undefined class was “hard to evaluate” and 

“incompatible” with the “typicality” requirement. Id. at 627. 

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ class definition 

“suffers from similar infirmities.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 

16. But not only is Rahman non-binding on this Court, it is also 

distinguishable on the facts. Significantly, though Plaintiffs 

refer to the “Title 42 Process” generally as a “system 

established in a set of agency documents—a new regulation, 

several orders, and an implementation memo,” id. at 17; 

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and motions briefing also 

separately identify and describe each regulation, order, and 

memo. See, e.g., Am. Compl., ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 41-66. Thus, unlike 

in Rahman, the Court is able to easily evaluate the application 

of specific policies and procedures on the proposed class 

members, and any “administrative feasibility requirement” is 

satisfied because identifying the class members under this 

definition would not require much, if any, individual factual 

inquiry. See Brewer, 2015 WL 13604257, at *6.
26

2. Rule 23(a) Requirements

a. Numerosity

Because of the general rule in favor of confining 

litigation to the named parties only, a class action is 

appropriate only when “the class is so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). 

Although Plaintiffs need not clear any “specific threshold,” as 

a general benchmark, “courts in this jurisdiction have observed 

that a class of at least forty members is sufficiently large to 

meet this requirement.” Taylor v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 241 

F.R.D. 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiffs may satisfy the 

requirement by supplying estimates of putative class members, 

see Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 347–48; “[s]o long as there is a 

reasonable basis for the estimate provided,” Kifafi v. Hilton 

Hotels Ret. Plan, 189 F.R.D. 174, 176 (D.D.C. 1999). 

Here, Defendants do not dispute that the proposed class 

satisfies the numerosity requirement. Plaintiffs have provided 

evidence that, between March 2020 and December 2020, 

approximately 21,515 members of family units4 were subject to the 

CDC Order and its previous iterations, see Kang Decl., ECF No. 

23-2 ¶ 4; and that, between April 2020 and December 2020, 

4 The CBP defines a “family unit” as “the number of individuals 

(either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) 

apprehended with a family member.” See Kang Decl., ECF No. 23-2 

¶ 3.
27

“approximately 21,018 members of family units (81%) were 

expelled under Title 42,” id. ¶ 6. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that the numerosity requirement is met. See O.A. v. Trump, 404 

F. Supp. 3d 109, 155 (D.D.C. 2019) (finding numerosity 

established by evidence in the administrative record estimating 

that the class consisted of “thousands of migrants who have 

crossed and will cross the United States’ southern border 

outside ports of entry”).

b. Commonality

A plaintiff seeking class certification must also establish 

that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). This requires more than the 

identification of the purported violation of the same provision 

of law. See DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 127–30 

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating an order certifying a class composed 

of students who were purportedly each denied a free appropriate 

public education on the ground that plaintiffs had identified 

only sufferers of a violation of the same provision of law and 

had not met the commonality requirement). Instead, the claims 

must depend on “a common contention [that] is capable of 

classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth 

or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity 

of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal–Mart Stores, 564 
28

U.S. at 350. “Even a single common question will do.” Id. at 359

(cleaned up).

As the D.C. Circuit has explained, commonality is satisfied 

where there is “a uniform policy or practice that affects all 

class members.” DL, 713 F.3d at 128; see also O.A., 404 F. Supp. 

3d at 156 (finding commonality satisfied where “[a]ll members of 

the proposed class, and all of the proposed class 

representatives, face the same threat of injury” and where 

“[a]ll challenge the same Rule on the same grounds, and all seek 

the same remedy—invalidation of the Rule”). Here, Plaintiffs are 

challenging the lawfulness of the Title 42 Process, which is a 

uniform policy that applies to each Plaintiff and all members of 

the proposed class. Moreover, “[n]ot only do all class members 

present the same challenge to the policy, but there also is no 

evident variation among them concerning their ultimate 

entitlement to relief: if any person in the class has a 

meritorious claim, they all do.” J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 

1321 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Court can, therefore, conclude that 

“common questions of law and fact” unite the class members’

claims. Damus v. Nielsen, 313 F. Supp. 3d 317, 332 (D.D.C. 2018) 

(finding that “the allegation that the five ICE Field Officers 

are no longer providing the ‘individualized determinations’ of 

parole eligibility and procedural protections required by the 

Parole Directive” satisfied the commonality requirement).
29

c. Typicality

A class representative satisfies the typicality requirement 

if the representative’s “claims are based on the same legal 

theory as the claims of the other class members” and her 

“injuries arise from the same course of conduct that gives rise 

to the other class members’ claims.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 35. 

Put another way, a representative’s claims are typical of those 

of the class when “[t]he plaintiffs allege that their injuries 

derive from a unitary course of conduct by a single system.” 

Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 1997). Here, 

Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class face the same 

injury: the threat of expulsion pursuant to the Title 42 

Process. All challenge the same policy on the same grounds, and 

all seek the same remedy—invalidation of the Title 42 Process.

Thus, the typicality requirement is met.

d. Adequacy

“The adequacy requirement aims to ensure that absent class 

members will not be bound by the outcome of a suit in which they 

were not competently and fairly represented.” J.D., 925 F.3d at

1312. “Adequacy embraces two components: the class 

representative (i) ‘must not have antagonistic or conflicting 

interests with the unnamed members of the class’ and (ii) ‘must 

appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class 
30

through qualified counsel.’” Id. (quoting Twelve John Does v. 

District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).

Defendants also do not dispute that Plaintiffs have 

satisfied the adequacy requirement. First, Defendants have not 

identified—and the Court is unaware of—any interest Plaintiffs

have that is antagonistic to or conflicts with the putative 

class members. Rather, courts have found that where, as here, 

the plaintiffs “seek identical relief for all class members, . . 

. there are no conflicting interests that might derail 

certification on this prong.” Coleman ex rel. Bunn v. District 

of Columbia, 306 F.R.D. 68, 84 (D.D.C. 2015). Second, the Court 

concludes that Plaintiffs’ current counsel are “willing and have 

the ability vigorously to litigate this case and to protect the 

interests of absent class members.” O.A., 404 F. Supp. 3d at

157.

3. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirement

Having determined that Plaintiffs meet the requirements of 

Rule 23(a), the Court must next determine whether they meet the 

requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) applies if “the 

party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds 

that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive 

relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate 

respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “The 

key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the 
31

injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the 

conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful 

only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.” WalMart, 564 U.S. at 360 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). Rule 23(b)(2) imposes “two requirements: (1) that 

defendant’s actions or refusal to act are ‘generally applicable 

to the class’ and (2) that plaintiffs seek final injunctive 

relief or corresponding declaratory relief on behalf of the 

class.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 37.

Plaintiffs have satisfied both requirements here. The 

relief Plaintiffs seek—among other things, a declaration that 

the Title 42 Process is unlawful and an injunction prohibiting 

Defendants from applying the Title 42 Process to Plaintiffs and 

proposed class members—is “generally applicable to the class” 

and is indivisible. See Damus, 313 F. Supp. 3d at 334–35 

(finding Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied where plaintiffs were not 

asking the court “to remedy discrete errors in their parole 

determinations,” but rather “only . . . address an alleged 

systematic harm”); R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 182 

(D.D.C. 2015) (finding Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied where plaintiffs 

sought to enjoin ICE from consideration of particular factor in 

making detention determination). Plaintiffs also do not seek

individualized relief, and thus this is not a case where “each 

individual class member would be entitled to a different
32

injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Wal–

Mart, 564 U.S. at 360; see also Ramirez, 338 F. Supp. 3d at 48

(finding Rule 23(b) satisfied where plaintiffs “d[id] not seek a 

court order mandating any particular outcome with respect to any 

particular [individual plaintiff]”).

For all these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion 

for class certification.

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the 

Merits

Plaintiffs argue that the CDC Orders instituting the Title 

42 Process exceed the authority granted by Congress pursuant to 

Section 265 because “[n]othing in [Section] 265, or Title 42 

more generally, purports to authorize any deportations, much 

less deportations in violation of” statutory procedures and 

humanitarian protections, including the right to seek asylum.

Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 17-18. The Court agrees

and finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to 

succeed on the merits of their claim.

Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 

U.S. 837 (1984), provides the framework for reviewing an 

agency’s interpretation of a statute that the agency is charged 

with administering. See 467 U.S. at 837. The first step in this 

review process is for the court to determine “whether Congress 
33

has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at 

842. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the 

matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect 

to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842–

43. In determining whether the statute unambiguously expresses 

the intent of Congress, the court should use all the 

“traditional tools of statutory construction,” including looking 

to the text and structure of the statute, as well as its 

legislative history, if appropriate. See id. at 843 n.9; see 

also Bell Atlantic Tel. Co. v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. 

Cir. 1997). If the court concludes that the statute is either 

silent or ambiguous with respect to the precise question at 

issue, the second step of the court’s review process is to 

determine whether the interpretation proffered by the agency is 

“based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron, 

467 U.S. at 843. The court must defer to agency interpretations 

that are not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to 

the statute.” Id. at 844.

The Court’s analysis begins with the statutory text. See S. 

Cal. Edison Co. v. FERC, 195 F.3d 17, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Here, Section 265 states in full:

Whenever the Surgeon General determines that 

by reason of the existence of any communicable 

disease in a foreign country there is serious 

danger of the introduction of such disease 

into the United States, and that this danger 
34

is so increased by the introduction of persons 

or property from such country that a 

suspension of the right to introduce such 

persons and property is required in the 

interest of the public health, the Surgeon 

General, in accordance with regulations 

approved by the President, shall have the 

power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the 

introduction of persons and property from such 

countries or places as he shall designate in 

order to avert such danger, and for such 

period of time as he may deem necessary for 

such purpose.

42 U.S.C. § 265. 

As Plaintiffs point out, Section 265 simply contains no 

mention of the word “expel”—or any synonyms thereof—within its 

text. See Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 18. The lack 

of express terms within the statute is significant: even “broad 

rulemaking power must be exercised within the bounds set by 

Congress,” Merck & Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 

385 F. Supp. 3d 81, 92, 94 (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 962 F.3d 531 

(D.C. Cir. 2020) (stating that “agencies are ‘bound, not only by 

the ultimate purposes Congress has selected, but by the means it 

has deemed appropriate, and prescribed, for the pursuit of those 

purposes’”); and the CDC “does not [have the] power to revise 

clear statutory terms,” Util. Air Reg. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 

302, 327 (2014).

Indeed, particularly where the statute in question regards 

such a “severe ‘penalty’” as deportation, Padilla v. Kentucky, 

559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010) (quoting Fong Yue Ting v. United 
35

States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)); the Court is loathe to 

recognize an implied power of forced removal from the country, 

see Util. Air Reg. Grp., 573 U.S. at 324 (“We expect Congress to 

speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of 

vast ‘economic and political significance.’”). Rather, as this 

Court explained in P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 512 

(D.D.C. 2020), “when Congress wants to grant the power to expel 

individuals out of the United States, it does so plainly.”

P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 512; see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 

1225(b)(2)(A), (C) (allowing an alien who has arrived on land 

from a contiguous country and who is “not clearly and beyond a 

doubt entitled to be admitted” to be “return[ed] . . . to that 

territory pending a proceeding”); id. § 1231(a)(1)(A) (“Except 

as otherwise provided in this section, when an alien is ordered 

removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the 

United States within a period of 90 days . . . .”); 18 U.S.C. § 

3186 (authorizing a fugitive from another country found in the 

United States to be “take[n] . . . to the territory of such 

foreign government” by an agent of that government). Moreover, 

“Congress has made clear when public health concerns merit 

disallowing a non-citizen to remain in the United States.” 

P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 539; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1) 

(providing that “aliens who are inadmissible” are those 

determined “to have a communicable disease of public health 
36

significance”); id. § 1222 (providing for medical detention and 

examination as part of immigration processing). As the Supreme 

Court “ha[s] stated time and again[,] . . . courts must presume 

that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in 

a statute what it says there.” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 

U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (citations omitted); see also FDA v. 

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143 (2000) (“The 

classic judicial task of reconciling many laws enacted over 

time, and getting them to make sense in combination, necessarily 

assumes that the implications of a statute may be altered by the 

implications of a later statute.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). And here, the plain language of Section 265, 

particularly when read in conjunction with the above statutes 

governing immigration under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, evinces no 

intention to grant the Executive the authority to expel or 

remove persons from the United States.

The Court also finds that the plain text of Section 265 is 

supported by the statutory context. See Brown & Williamson 

Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. at 132-33 (2000) (“It is a ‘fundamental 

canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must 

be read in their context and with a view to their place in the 

overall statutory scheme.’” (quoting Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of 

Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989))). For example, in Section 

271, Congress provided for specific “penalties” for those 
37

persons who or vessels that violated public health regulations 

prescribed under the relevant sections, including Section 265. 

42 U.S.C. § 271. For individuals, Section 271 states that any 

violation “shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 

or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.” Id. §

271(a). Removal from the United States, however, is not included 

as a penalty. Moreover, Section 271 refers to the regulations 

prescribed under Section 265 and others as “quarantine laws,” 

further suggesting that the CDC’s powers were limited to 

quarantine and containment. Id. § 271 (emphasis added).

Neither does neighboring Section 264 contemplate the 

removal of persons from the United States. Section 264 

authorizes the Secretary to use various public health measures

to “prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of 

communicable diseases.” 42 U.S.C. § 264. Although Defendants 

rely on Section 264 as evidence of the Secretary’s “sweeping 

authority to protect the country from potentially devastating 

communicable diseases,” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 23; the 

provision only mentions regulations that provide for the 

“apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of 

individuals” if the individual is “coming into a State or 

possession from a foreign country or possession.” 42 U.S.C. §

264(c). Again, the authority to remove is not mentioned. “That 

is, in a section where one would expect the term to appear—where 
38

Congress has delineated the government’s power to prevent the 

spread of contagious disease from individuals coming into the 

United States from a foreign country—it does not.” P.J.E.S., 502 

F. Supp. 3d at 537-38. 

Furthermore, even beyond Sections 264 and 271, the statute 

as a whole does not contain “a word about the power of the [CDC] 

to expel anyone who has come into the country.” Id. at 513-14 

(citing 42 U.S.C., Chap. 6A, Subchap. II, Part G (entitled 

“Quarantine and Inspection”)); 42 U.S.C. § 267 (entitled 

“Quarantine stations, grounds, and anchorages”); id. § 268 

(entitled “Quarantine duties of consular and other officers”); 

id. § 270 (entitled “Quarantine regulations governing civil air 

navigation and civil aircraft”); id. § 271 (entitled “Penalties 

for violation of quarantine laws”); id. § 272 (entitled 

“Administration of oaths by quarantine officers”). Rather, the 

statutory scheme reflects Congress’s focus on the public’s 

health, authorizing the CDC to create regulations that allow for 

the “apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional 

release of individuals” entering from foreign countries to stop 

the spread of communicable diseases from those countries, id. § 

264; and then in times of serious danger, to halt the 

“introduction of persons” from designated foreign countries, id.

§ 265.
39

Defendants argue, however, that the findings above

“ignore[] the purely public health purpose of the statute,”

because “[t]he absence of the terms ‘expel’ or ‘removal’ has no 

special significance in the public health context even if its 

absence might be meaningful in the immigration context.” Defs.’ 

Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 19-20. They further contend that Section 

265’s phrase “prohibit[ing] . . . the introduction” does not 

demonstrate that Congress intended to limit the Executive’s 

authority at “stopping a person precisely at the Nation’s 

borders.” Id. at 18. Instead, “the term ‘introduction’ refers to 

a continuing process and is most naturally read to extend beyond 

a person’s immediate physical crossing of the border,” and “to 

‘prohibit . . . the introduction’ naturally means to intercept 

or prevent such a process.” Id. at 18-19. Thus, in Defendants’ 

view, “the Section 265 authority includes intercepting and 

halting persons who have already crossed the border—but who are 

in the process of being introduced—into the United States.” Id.

at 19.

Defendants arguments are unpersuasive. First, regardless of 

whether the words “expel” or “remove” are specific to the 

immigration context, Defendants do not explain the lack of 

synonyms of either word within the statute. Moreover, “[i]t is a 

fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that absent 

provision[s] cannot be supplied by the courts.” Rotkiske v. 
40

Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355, 360–61 (2019) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). “[W]hen 

Congress wants to mandate [certain] procedures[,] it knows 

exactly how to do so.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 

1612, 1626 (2018). In view of current immigration laws, which 

speak to deportation by using words such as “remove” and 

“return,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A) (“The Attorney General 

shall prescribe conditions . . . to . . . return . . . 

inadmissible aliens . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. § 1182(h)(2) 

(“No waiver shall be granted . . . for a period of not less than 

7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of 

proceedings to remove the alien from the United States.” 

(emphasis added)); this Court recognizes, as have other courts 

in this District, that “[t]here’s a serious question about 

whether [Section 265’s] power includes the power . . . to remove 

or exclude persons who are already present in the United 

States,” Hr’g Tr., J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1509, ECF No. 39 

at 50 (June 26, 2020). Put simply, the “fact that Congress did 

not use [words such as ‘return’ or ‘remove’] . . . suggests at a 

minimum that the power to remove is not granted by [S]ection 

265.” Id.5

5 Citing to dicta in Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 25 

(1983), the government argues that “language in one statute 

usually sheds little light upon the meaning of different 

language in another statute.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 19-20. 
41

Second, even accepting the government’s position that the 

phrase “prohibit . . . the introduction of” means “to intercept 

or prevent” the “process” of introduction, Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 

76 at 18-19; this phrase also does not encompass expulsion from 

the United States, nor do any of the definitions provided by the 

Government contain the word “expel” or synonyms thereof. Rather, 

to “prohibit . . . the introduction of” merely means that the 

process of introduction can be halted. And “[e]xpelling persons, 

as a matter of ordinary language, is entirely different from 

interrupting, intercepting, or halting the process of 

introduction.” P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. at 512; see also id. at 

536 (finding that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of 

“prohibit,” “intercept,” and “prevent” each “connote stopping 

something before it begins, rather than remedying it 

afterwards”). In other words, “interrupting, intercepting, or 

halting the process of introduction does [not] inexorably lead 

to expulsion.” Id. at 512.

However, the Supreme Court routinely points to other statutes as 

evidence that Congress knows how to legislate in particular 

ways. See Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355, 361 (2019) (“A 

textual judicial supplementation is particularly inappropriate 

when, as here, Congress has shown that it knows how to adopt the 

omitted language or provision. Congress has enacted statutes 

that expressly include the language [the petitioner] asks us to 

read in . . . .”); Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 

1626 (2018) (explaining that “when Congress wants to mandate 

[certain] procedures[,] it knows exactly how to do so,” and 

“Congress has spoken often and clearly” to the issue in other 

statutes).
42

The Government next contends that, “rather than specifying 

that the power to prohibit the introduction of persons is 

limited to the Nation’s borders,” Congress expressly delegated 

the power to issue regulations that accomplish Section 265’s

purpose. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 20. But the government's 

argument is beside the point; if Section 265 does not provide 

the authority to expel persons, then it does not delegate the 

authority to issue regulations to expel persons. In addition, 

the Court also notes that the legislative history cited by the 

government—that Section 265’s predecessor statute would have 

given the President the power to suspend “immigration,” see 

Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 22—does not provide support for its 

position that Section 265 authorizes it to expel persons.

Finally, in view of the above discussion and finding that

Section 265 is not ambiguous, the Court need not reach step two 

of the Chevron analysis. However, even if the statute was 

ambiguous, deference would not be justified. First, “the 

‘reconciliation’ of distinct statutory regimes ‘is a matter for 

the courts,’ not agencies,” Epic Sys., 138 S. Ct. at 1629 

(quoting Gordon v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 422 U.S. 659, 685-86 

(1975)); and here, “[t]he question for this claim is purely 

legal: does Section 265 authorize expulsions from the United

States, or does it not?” P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 544 n.15.

And while the government contends that the interpretation of 
43

“introduction” is within the Secretary’s expertise, see Defs.’ 

Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 33-34; the Court disagrees. “The CDC’s 

‘scientific and technical knowledge’ . . . has no bearing on 

that question of statutory interpretation.” P.J.E.S., 502 F. 

Supp. 3d at 544 n.15. Moreover, government has not explained how 

its scientific and technical expertise would lead it to 

interpret “introduction” to encompass “expulsion.” Cf. Kisor v. 

Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2416 (2019) (noting that “[a] court 

must make an independent inquiry into whether the character and 

context of the agency interpretation entitled it to controlling 

weight”); see also NRDC v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 755-56 (D.C. 

Cir. 2000) (“The Service cannot rely on ‘reminders that its 

scientific determinations are entitled to deference’ in the 

absence of reasoned analysis ‘to cogently explain’ why its 

additional recommended measures satisfied the Fishery Act’s 

requirements.”). Accordingly, the CDC is not entitled to 

deference with respect to its interpretation.6

2. Plaintiffs Face Irreparable Injury

“The failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is ‘grounds 

for refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, even if the 

6 Because the Court finds that Title 42 does not authorize 

expulsion, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ additional 

arguments that Section 265 was designed to regulation 

transportation or that, even if Section 265 authorized 

expulsions, the Title 42 Process would violate the immigration 

statutes. See Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 21, 27.
44

other three factors . . . merit such relief.’” Nat’l Mining 

Ass’n v. Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34, 50 (D.D.C. 2011) (RBW) 

(quoting Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 

290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “In this Circuit, a litigant seeking 

a preliminary injunction must satisfy ‘a high standard’ for 

irreparable injury.” ConverDyn, 68 F. Supp. 3d at 46 (quoting 

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 297). The movant 

must demonstrate that it faces an injury that is “both certain 

and great; it must be actual and not theoretical,” and of a 

nature “of such imminence that there is a clear and present need 

for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” Wis. Gas Co. 

v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and 

emphasis omitted).

Plaintiffs contend that they are likely to suffer 

irreparable harm if they are expelled without the opportunity to 

seek humanitarian relief pursuant to the Title 42 Process. Pls.’ 

Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 31. Plaintiffs have presented 

as evidence United States Department of State reports and 

multiple declarations asserting that the home countries of the 

proposed class members “are among the most dangerous in the 

world due to gang, gender, family membership, and other 

identity-based violence.” Id. at 32. The declarations submitted 

to the Court specify in detail Plaintiffs’ fear of violence, 

persecution, and other victimization if they are removed, yet 
45

they remain subject to the Title 42 Process and face the threat 

of removal prior to receiving any of the protections the 

immigration laws provide. See, e.g., Sealed Decl., ECF No. 9; 

Sealed Decl., ECF No. 17; Sealed Decl., ECF No. 27; Sealed 

Decl., ECF No. 32; Sealed Decls., ECF Nos. 63-67; Sealed Decl., 

ECF No. 70; Sealed Decls., ECF Nos. 84; Sealed Decls., ECF No. 

88-89. Plaintiffs further assert that many of the families “are 

expelled to Mexico, where they are often victimized by criminal 

cartels and gang members and face numerous barriers to finding 

safe places to shelter.” Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1

at 33. Defendants do not dispute the potential harms that 

Plaintiffs could face if removed from the United States. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown 

they will likely suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary 

injunction. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries would likely be “beyond 

remediation.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 

297. First, pursuant to the Title 42 Process, Plaintiffs and the 

proposed class members face the prospect of expulsion without 

any opportunity to apply for asylum or withholding of removal. 

And once expelled from the United States and outside the 

jurisdiction of the Court, a judicial remedy may be unavailable.

See Doe v. Mattis, 928 F.3d 1, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (finding 

irreparable harm likely to flow from the transfer of a dual 

citizen detained in Iraq to an unidentified third country 
46

because he would then be in the custody of that third country 

“without any continuing oversight by—or recourse to—the United 

States”); P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 545; Tefel v. Reno, 972 

F. Supp. 608, 619–20 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (“[T]he Court finds . . . 

that Plaintiffs and class members would suffer irreparable harm 

if they are deported to their native countries after having been 

denied an opportunity to have a hearing on their claims for 

suspension of deportation.”); Velasquez v. Velasquez, No. 14-cv1688, 2014 WL 7272934, at *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2014) (finding 

irreparable harm where children could be removed from 

jurisdiction because that would “frustrate the effort of th[e] 

Court in resolving the [dispute]”). Second, members of the 

proposed class also do not seek monetary compensation for their 

injuries; instead, they seek injunctive and declaratory relief 

invalidating the Title 42 Process. Unlike economic harm, the 

harm resulting from expulsion from the United States pursuant to 

an unlawful policy likely cannot be remediated after the fact. 

Cf. Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1295 

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (explaining that economic losses are typically 

not irreparable because compensation can be awarded after a 

merits determination).

In addition, “[i]t is well-established that acts by

[g]overnment agencies in derogation of statutory rights of the

public or certain individual members of the public can
47

constitute irreparable injury.” Kirwa v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 285

F. Supp. 3d 21, 42 n.22 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Gates v.

Schlesinger, 366 F. Supp. 797, 800 (D.D.C. 1973)). Here, the

Court has explained that Section 265 likely does not authorize

expulsion, thereby denying the proposed class members’ the

opportunity to seek humanitarian benefits pursuant to the

immigration statutes.

Defendants argue, however, that the “inherently 

individualized nature” of Plaintiffs’ potential harms does not 

demonstrate that the harms are “likely” to occur in the absence 

of a preliminary injunction. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 35. But 

while the decision whether to eventually grant asylum to 

individuals is undoubtedly fact-intensive, as explained above, 

Plaintiffs have provided ample unrebutted evidence demonstrating 

that they are collectively deprived of certain statutory 

procedures to seek protection under the Title 42 Process, and 

they face real threats of violence and persecution if they were 

to be removed from the United States. See, e.g., Neusner Decl., 

ECF No. 118-4 ¶ 8; Harbury Decl., ECF No. 118-5 ¶¶ 1, 10; Arvey 

Decl, ECF No. 118-7 ¶ 16; Pinheiro Decl., ECF No. 118-7 ¶ 37; 

Suppl. Levy Decl., ECF No. 118-3 ¶ 16; Rivas Decl., ECF No. 118-

11 ¶ 16. In addition, as Plaintiffs point out, “Defendants offer 

no evidence that class members face materially disparate dangers 

once expelled.” Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 20. As other courts
48

have noted, “similar showings” of “bona fide clams for 

humanitarian relief, including fear of persecution on the basis 

of protected characteristics,” have been found to be “sufficient 

to demonstrate irreparable injury.” P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 

544 (citing cases); see also J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1509, 

2020 WL 6041870, at *2 (D.D.C. June 26, 2020) (stating that 

sealed “declaration describing the possible harms that would 

result from plaintiff’s return to Honduras” was sufficient); 

Devitri v. Cronen, 289 F. Supp. 3d 287, 296-97 (D. Mass. 2018)

(finding unrebutted evidence showing threat of persecution or 

torture if deported established likely irreparable harm, despite 

“no individualized evidence concerning the specific threats each 

Petitioner faces in Indonesia”); Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 

3d 96, 146 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other 

grounds sub nom., Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020)

(“[P]laintiffs credibly alleged at their credible fear 

determinations that they feared rape, pervasive domestic 

violence, beatings, shootings, and death in their countries of 

origin. Based on plaintiffs’ declarations attesting to such 

harms, they have demonstrated that they have suffered 

irreparable injuries.”); Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese, 685 F. 

Supp. 1488, 1504–05 (C.D. Cal. 1988) (finding that plaintiffs 

would suffer irreparable harm if they were summarily removed 
49

without being afforded the opportunity to exercise their right 

to apply for asylum).

Defendants also contend that “the [g]overnment’s 

implementation of the Order provides a process for determining a 

covered alien’s claim for protection under the Convention

Against Torture. Thus, Plaintiffs would not be expelled without 

some opportunity to seek humanitarian relief.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF 

No. 76 at 35. However, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs 

and proposed class members would still be deprived of the 

protections and procedures provided for under the immigration 

statutes. See id.

Plaintiffs have thus shown a likelihood of suffering

irreparable harm.

3. The Balance of the Equities and Public 

Interest Favors an Injunction

The balance-of-equities factor directs the Court to 

“balance the competing claims of injury and . . . consider the 

effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the 

requested relief.” ConverDyn, 68 F. Supp. 3d at 52 (quoting 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 24). “When the issuance of a preliminary 

injunction, while preventing harm to one party, causes injury to 

the other, this factor does not weigh in favor of granting 

preliminary injunctive relief.” Id.; see also Serono Labs., Inc. 

v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1998). By contrast, 
50

the balance of equities may favor a preliminary injunction that 

serves only “to preserve the relative positions of the parties 

until a trial on the merits can be held.” Rufer v. FEC, 64 F. 

Supp. 3d 195, 206 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Camenisch, 451 U.S. at 

395). “The purpose of . . . interim relief is not to 

conclusively determine the rights of the parties, . . . but to 

balance the equities as the litigation moves forward. In 

awarding a preliminary injunction a court must also ‘conside[r] 

. . . the overall public interest’. . . .” Trump v. Int’l 

Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (second 

alteration in original) (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs contend that issuing a preliminary injunction 

“would not substantially injure the government and would be 

consistent with public health” because (1) “families who come to 

the border . . . can be processed quickly by Border Patrol 

agents and released to sponsors in the interior,” where they can 

quarantine and be subject to local health restrictions; (2) 

“insofar as Defendants choose to detain families upon their 

apprehension at the border, Defendants operate family detention 

facilities where the family can be housed together,” as well as 

tested and quarantined; and (3) “Defendants keep many families 

in custody for weeks before expulsion,” where the families are 

tested for COVID-19. Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 57-1 at 

34-35. Defendants, in opposition, argue that “an injunction will 
51

increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission, which for some could 

have deadly consequences, and undoing the mitigation measures 

put in place by the Order is not in the public interest.” Defs.’ 

Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 36. 

Here, the Court ultimately finds that the balance of the 

equities and the public interest weigh in favor of an 

injunction. 

First, “[t]here is generally no public interest in the 

perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” League of Women Voters 

of U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also 

Ramirez v. ICE, 310 F. Supp. 3d 7, 33 (D.D.C. 2018) (“The public 

interest surely does not cut in favor of permitting an agency to 

fail to comply with a statutory mandate.”); R.I.L-R, 80 F. Supp. 

3d at 191 (“The Government ‘cannot suffer harm from an 

injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice or reads a 

statute as required to avoid constitutional concerns.’”). As 

explained above, the Court has determined that Plaintiffs are 

likely to succeed on their claim that the Title 42 Process is 

unlawful. Accordingly, because “there is an overriding public 

interest . . . in the general importance of an agency’s faithful 

adherence to its statutory mandate,” Jacksonville Port Auth. v. 

Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1977); the Court finds that 

Plaintiffs likelihood of success “is a strong indicator that a 

preliminary injunction would serve the public interest,” Newby, 
52

838 F.3d at 12; see also A.B.-B. v. Morgan, No. 20-cv-846, 2020 

WL 5107548, at *9 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2020) (“[T]he Government and 

public can have little interest in executing removal orders that 

are based on statutory violations . . . .”).

Second, “the public has an interest in ‘ensuring that we do 

not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors,’ LeivaPerez [v. Holder], 640 F.3d [962,] 971 [(9th Cir. 2011)], and 

‘preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly 

to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm,’

Nken, 556 U.S. at 436.” East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 

993 F.3d 640, 678 (9th Cir. 2021). Here, the Title 42 Process 

deprives Plaintiffs and the proposed class members of an 

opportunity to seek humanitarian protections under the asylum 

and withholding of removal statutes. Proceeding to the merits of 

this litigation without preliminary injunctive relief thus 

“risks [P]laintiffs being returned to home countries where they 

face significant risk of physical harm.” A.B.-B., 2020 WL 

5107548, at *9. Defendants do not question that Plaintiffs face 

substantial harm if returned to their countries of origin.

Accordingly, “[t]hese life-or-death consequences weigh heavily 

in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.” Id.; see also

Devitri, 289 F. Supp. 3d at 297 (D. Mass. 2018) (“The public’s 

interest in providing due process for non-citizens to ensure 

that they are not removed to a country where they will be 
53

persecuted is an extremely weighty one.”); Chaudhry v. Barr, No. 

19-cv-00682, 2019 WL 2009307, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) 

(“[T]here is . . . ‘a public interest in preventing aliens from 

being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they 

are likely to face substantial harm.’” (quoting Sied v. Nielsen, 

No. 17-cv-06785, 2018 WL 1142202, at *27 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 

2018))).

Defendants argue, however, that “an injunction will 

increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission, which for some could 

have deadly consequences, and undoing the mitigation measures 

put in place by the Order is not in the public interest.” Defs.’ 

Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 36. According to Defendants, (1) “CBP 

facilities ‘are not structured or equipped for quarantine or 

isolation for COVID-19’”; (2) “[t]he numbers of aliens and the 

size and capacity of the congregate holding areas are not at all 

conducive to effective social distancing”; and (3) “CBP is not 

equipped to provide on-site care to infected persons.” Id. 

(quoting March Order at 14; Final Rule, 85 Fed Reg. at 56,433).

Due to these constraints, Defendants fear that U.S. Border 

Patrol’s facilities “may rapidly become overcrowded” if the 

Title 42 Process is rescinded. Id. But despite the government’s 

warnings regarding the capacity of its facilities and staff, the 

fact remains that “86% of families arriving at the southwest 

border are already allowed into the United States and processed 
54

for regular removal proceedings.” Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 

22. Moreover, although Defendants have expressed concerns 

regarding its inability to provide for quarantine space or 

“effective social distancing” if the Title 42 Process were not 

in effect, expulsion pursuant to the CDC Orders still results in 

“plac[ing] families on crowded planes and buses from the Rio 

Grande Valley,” without first testing the individuals and 

isolating those who test positive, and transporting them “to 

other locations in Texas, or places as far away as Arizona and 

San Diego,” before expelling them or releasing them into the 

United States. Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 25. 

Citing an increased number of “enforcement encounters” from 

April 2020 to January 2021, Defendants further contend that an 

injunction in this case could “create a ‘pull factor’ leading to 

additional attempts to enter the United States and in turn more 

apprehensions.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 37 (citing Miller 

Decl., ECF No. 76-2 ¶ 16). However, as Plaintiffs point out, 

Defendants’ only evidence in support of their prediction is “a 

16% increase in encounters of unaccompanied children in the 

weeks after entry of this Court’s injunction in P.J.E.S. in 

November 2020,” which was actually “part of a larger upward 

trend that predated the injunction by many months—and it was 

smaller than the percentage increase for each month from April 

to October 2020, when Title 42 was being enforced against 
55

unaccompanied children.” Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 26 (citing 

Menjívar Decl., ECF No. 118-23 ¶ 15). Moreover, though 

Defendants contend that there has been a “historic” level of 

enforcement encounters at the border, the statistics Defendants 

cite “overstate the number of unique individuals arriving at the 

border.” Reichlin-Melnick Decl., ECF No. 118-18 ¶¶ 15-16. For 

example, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that, after the 

implementation of the Title 42 Process, the recidivism rate of 

individuals crossing the border increased from less than 7% to 

40%. Id. ¶ 11. In other words, under the Title 42 regime, 

individuals seeking an asylum hearing have attempted to cross 

the border multiple times, “sometimes 10 times or more, and each 

attempt is counted as a new ‘encounter.’” Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 

118 at 22. Such evidence casts doubt on Defendants’ claims that 

an injunction in this matter would create a “pull factor.” See 

Flores v. Sessions, No. 85-cv-4544, 2018 WL 4945000, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. July 9, 2018) (finding argument that border crossings would 

surge due to court order lacked merit).

Defendants also note that “the pandemic has taken a toll on 

the CBP workforce,” with many CBP employees contracting COVID-19 

and several others dying from the virus. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 

76 at 37 (citing Miller Decl., ECF No. 76-2 ¶ 18). Defendants 

assert that “[w]ith personnel on sick leave or quarantining, the 

ability of CBP to perform its functions is diminished.” Id.
56

(citing Miller Decl., ECF No. 76-2 ¶ 14). The loss of life 

resulting from COVID-19 contraction is undeniably tragic, and 

the Court agrees that “promoting public health—especially during 

a pandemic—is in the public interest.” Nat’l Immigration Project 

of Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. Exec. Off. of Immigration Review, 456 

F. Supp. 3d 16, 34 (D.D.C. 2020). However, Defendants provide no 

evidence that the CBP employees who tested positive for COVID-19 

contracted the virus from any of the asylum seekers crossing the 

border into the United States. And, significantly, since 

Defendants filed its opposition brief in this matter, vaccines 

protecting against the risk of serious disease and 

hospitalization have become widely available in the United 

States. See Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 25. The Court does not 

doubt that a preliminary injunction issued in this matter would 

force the government “to make difficult decisions about 

allocation of resources to mitigate the risks caused by COVID19.” P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 549. But in view of the wide 

availability of testing, vaccines, and other minimization 

measures, the Court is not convinced that the transmission of 

COVID-19 during border processing cannot be significantly 

mitigated. Indeed, the government has successfully implemented 

mitigation measures with regard to processing unaccompanied 

minors in order to minimize risk of COVID-19 transmission. See 

Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 118 at 21-22.
57

Finally, Defendants argue that “[a]ny time [the government] 

is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by 

representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable 

injury.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 38 (quoting Maryland v. 

King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)). But, as explained above, the 

Title 42 Process is likely unlawful, and “[t]here is generally 

no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency 

action.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 12.

4. The Court Will Not Require Plaintiffs to 

Post a Bond

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that “[t]he 

court may issue a preliminary injunction . . . only if the 

movant gives security in an amount that the court considers 

proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found 

to have been wrongfully enjoined.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). 

“Courts in this Circuit have found the Rule ‘vest[s] broad 

discretion in the district court to determine the appropriate 

amount of an injunction bond,’ including the discretion to 

require no bond at all.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. 

Supp. 2d 90, 107 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting DSE, Inc. v. United 

States, 169 F.3d 21, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1999)) (internal citation 

omitted). Here, Plaintiffs are families allegedly fleeing 

persecution in their home country and do not have the ability to 

post a bond. Additionally, they are seeking to vindicate 
58

important procedures and protections under the immigration laws. 

Accordingly, the Court will waive the requirement for an 

injunction bond. See id.

5. The Court Shall Stay the Preliminary 

Injunction 

Defendants request that the Court stay its Order enjoining 

the Title 42 Process for 14 days “to give Defendants sufficient 

time to explore their appellate options.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 

76 at 39. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ request. Pls.’ 

Reply, ECF No. 118 at 30. Accordingly, the Court shall stay its 

Order for 14 days from the date of its entry. However, the Court 

declines to stay this decision pending appeal for substantially 

the same reasons as those articulated in this Opinion.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 23, and GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 57. The 

preliminary injunction shall be stayed for 14 days. An 

appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan 

United States District Judge 

September 16, 2021