Opinion ID: 6498328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legality of Agency Action

Text: DHS’s three defenses of the Final Memo on its merits are also likely to fail on final appellate consideration. We address each in turn.
A primary point of contention here is whether the Final Memo conflicts with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a) by rendering optional what the statutes make mandatory. Significantly, these provisions are distinguishable from 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), construed in Texas MPP, which governs aliens apprehended at the U.S. border who claim asylum relief. The relevant provisions here do not utilize discretionary language, unlike the main provision in Texas MPP, § 1225(b)(2)(C). Additionally, unlike Section 1225(b), the instant provisions relate to the expedited removal of a small subset of aliens who have been in the United States and fall into two categories: (1) those who, having been convicted of certain enumerated criminal offenses, are removable; and (2) those who, at the conclusion of immigration proceedings, have become subject to final removal orders. Accordingly, we determine that the Court’s statutory analysis in Texas MPP does not foreclose the question presented to this court with respect to §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a). We begin with the plain language and structure of the statutes. Section 1226(c) provides: “The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who” committed certain delineated crimes 10 “when the alien is 10 These crimes include aliens convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, aliens convicted of drug offenses, aliens convicted of multiple offenses with an aggregate sentence of confinement of five years or more, aliens who are traffickers of controlled substances, aliens convicted of an aggravated felony, aliens who participate in the commercialized sex industry, aliens who engaged in terrorist activity, aliens who served in foreign governments and committed “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” aliens who participate in the human trafficking industry, aliens who engage in money laundering, and aliens 20 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 released” from state or local custody. § 1226(c)(1) (emphasis added). There is one, and only one, qualification to this mandatory provision, which authorizes discretionary release of such an alien “only if” three things are true—such release is “necessary to provide protection” for a witness or cooperator; and the alien proves he will pose no danger to persons or property and will appear for proceedings; and the release procedures must take into account the severity of the alien’s offense. 11 To effectuate § 1226(c)’s arrest and detention mandate, Congress also provided that the Attorney General shall devise and implement a system to identify and track criminal aliens in local, state, and federal custody. § 1226(d) (emphasis added). Consequently, as the Supreme Court explained, “Section 1226(c) mandates detention during removal proceedings for a limited class of deportable aliens—including those convicted of an aggravated felony.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517–18, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1714 (2003). In Demore, the Court thoroughly explained that § 1226(c) was enacted to redress convicted of certain firearms offenses. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2), (a)(3)(B), 1226(c), 1227(a)(2)(A)–(D). 11 The provision states: The Attorney General may release an alien described in paragraph (1) only if the Attorney General decides pursuant to section 3521 of title 18 that release of the alien from custody is necessary to provide protection to a witness, a potential witness, a person cooperating with an investigation into major criminal activity, or an immediate family member or close associate of a witness, potential witness, or person cooperating with such an investigation, and the alien satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding. A decision relating to such release shall take place in accordance with a procedure that considers the severity of the offense committed by the alien. § 1226(c)(2) (emphasis added). 21 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 multiple problems attendant to flight and recidivism because the previous law entitled criminal aliens to individualized bond or detention hearings, which led to a high rate of releases. Id. at 518–20, 123 S. Ct. at 1714–16. Congress was “concern[ed] that, even with individualized screening, releasing deportable criminal aliens on bond would lead to an unacceptable rate of flight.” Id. at 520, 123 S. Ct. at 1716. But, evidencing the sharply different enforcement concerns between non-criminal aliens and criminal aliens, Congress provided more discretion as it pertains to non-criminal aliens. Section 1226(a), which applies to aliens “[e]xcept as provided in [§ 1226(c)],” states that the Attorney General “may continue to detain the arrested alien,” or “may release the alien on” bond or conditional parole. § 1226(a)(1)–(2) (emphasis added). Closely related to § 1226(c) is § 1231(a), which provides that “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.” § 1231(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Further, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien. Under no circumstance during the removal period shall the Attorney General release an alien who has” been convicted of enumerated crimes. 12 § 1231(a)(2) (emphasis added). Under basic principles of statutory construction, different words are accorded their “ordinary” meaning and the text of a statute must be 12 These include a crime of moral turpitude, a drug offense, drug trafficking, human trafficking, multiple offenses with an aggregate sentence of confinement of five years or more, prostitution, an aggravated felony, high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint, failure to register as a sex offender, certain firearm offenses, crimes of domestic violence, crimes against children, or who has engaged in terrorist activity. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2), (a)(3)(B), 1226(c), 1227(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), 1231(a)(2). 22 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 construed as a whole. 13 Nowhere do these principles make more sense than in the juxtapositions of “shall” with “may” in the two provisions at issue here. In fact, the Court has firmly warned that these terms should be afforded different meanings, especially where both are used in the same statute. See, e.g., Texas MPP, slip op. at –15 (holding that the “unambiguous, express term ‘may’” does not mean “shall” and it was error for the lower court to hold otherwise); Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 346, 125 S. Ct. 694, 703 (2005) (noting that it is error to read these two words synonymously when both are used in the same statute). Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted both of these statutes to require mandatory detention. 14 Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2280–81 & n.2 (2021) (“During the removal period, detention is mandatory” under § 1231(a)(2), and “[f]or certain criminal aliens and aliens who have connections to terrorism, detention is mandatory” under § 1226(c)); Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 959 (2019) (referring to § 1226(c) as a “mandatorydetention requirement”); Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 846 (noting that § 1226(c) “mandates detention”); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 683, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 2495 (2001) (“After entry of a final removal order and during the 90– day removal period, however, aliens must be held in custody” under § 1231(a)(2)); Demore, 538 U.S. at 517–18, 123 S. Ct. at 1714 (2003) (“Section 1226(c) mandates detention during removal proceedings for a limited class of deportable aliens.”). 13 ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS § 24, p. 167 (2012). 14 DHS tries to distinguish these cases as involving individual aliens seeking relief. This makes no sense. A straightforward statutory dictate does not modulate from mandatory to permissive based on the particulars of the given case. 23 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 The parallel treatment of mandatory and precatory terms indicates conscious choices by Congress. DHS does not dispute that “shall” typically represents mandatory language and that “may” “clearly connotes” discretion. Texas MPP, slip op. at 13 (quoting Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601, 1603 (2020)). See also Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1320 (2020) (“Unlike the word ‘may,’ which implies discretion, the word ‘shall’ usually connotes a requirement.”). Nevertheless, citing Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 125 S. Ct. 2796 (2005), DHS contends that there must be clear legislative intent, beyond the word “shall,” that the legislature intended to overcome the agency’s established discretion. Specifically, DHS argues that Castle Rock’s holding that “[t]he deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion” may trump “seemingly mandatory legislative commands” overcomes the plain meaning of the term “shall” in the instant provisions. Id. at 761, 125 S. Ct. 2796. But Castle Rock does not apply here for at least two reasons. First, Castle Rock is distinguishable on its facts. There, the Court determined that the plaintiff did not have a protected property interest in the enforcement of the terms of her restraining order by the state police for purposes of the Due Process Clause. 545 U.S. at 755, 125 S. Ct. at 2803. Colorado law did not make enforcement of restraining orders mandatory, irrespective of the use of the term “shall,” and thus there was no general entitlement to enforcement of such restraining orders. Id. at 760-68, 125 S. Ct. at 2805–2809. It is a far stretch of this precedent to extend it from individualized decisions made by police officers to agency-wide decisions made by DHS. It is even more of a stretch when, as just explained, the statutory language seems incontrovertibly mandatory. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never applied Castle Rock to federal agency action, and Fifth Circuit precent has only 24 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 applied it to federal agency action where a statutory scheme expressly rendered the agency action discretionary. 15 Second, the limitless principle of law that DHS would have us draw from Castle Rock is untenable and wholly unsupported. DHS effectively seeks a reading of Castle Rock that would insulate agency action that in any way relates to enforcement duties, despite the plain language of the INA. Nothing in Castle Rock compels that conclusion. The ruling there was based, not on a police department-wide policy of not enforcing restraining orders, but rather an individualized instance of nonenforcement. The Final Memo, however, is much more than a singular nonenforcement decision. It is an agency-wide mandate that strips from ICE agents their once-held discretion and subjects all enforcement decisions to strict oversight in express derogation of the governing statutes. Castle Rock does not compel us to ignore the plain text of the INA for such agency action. DHS is not likely to succeed on this crucial point. We are additionally disturbed by certain aspects of the Considerations Memo, which purports to summarize and provide context to the Final Memo. In more ways than one, the Considerations Memo compels officials to comply with the Final Memo by utilizing prosecutorial discretion in a manner that violates statutory law. For example, it provides that the guidelines “are essential to advancing this Administration’s stated commitment to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” DHS’s replacement of Congress’s statutory mandates with concerns of equity and race is extralegal, considering 15 Ridgely v. FEMA, 512 F.3d 727, 735–36 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that the statutes and regulations governing Federal Emergency Management Agency did not create a property interest in enforcement where “mandatory language is wholly absent”). 25 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 that such policy concerns are plainly outside the bounds of the power conferred by the INA. Similarly, the Considerations Memo explains that, in identifying those who are a threat to public safety, DHS “chose to place greater emphasis on the totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of identifying this group categorically. But DHS simply lacks the authority to make that choice when the statutes plainly mandate such categorical treatment. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that Congress attempted to prohibit such individualized consideration when it enacted § 1226(c) because the previous policy led to unacceptably high rates of criminal alien flight. Demore, 538 U.S. at 518–20, 123 S. Ct. at 1714–16. Thus, the Consideration Memo further confirms what the Final Memo says for itself— that it represents a disingenuous attempt on behalf of DHS to claim it acts within the bounds of federal law while practically disregarding that law.
Courts are compelled to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action[s]” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). While a reviewing court must not “substitute” its “own policy for that of the agency” and must apply this standard deferentially, the agency action must still “be reasonable and reasonably explained.” FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1158 (2021). This court “must set aside any action premised on reasoning that fails to account for relevant factors or evinces a clear error of judgment.” Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. HHS, 985 F.3d 472, 475 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). Arbitrary and capricious review “is not toothless.” Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1013 (5th Cir. 2019). “In fact, after Regents, it has serious bite.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 16 F.4th 1130, 1136 (5th Cir. 2021). “[A]n agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself,” not reasons 26 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 27 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 developed post hoc. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 2870 (1983). DHS contends that the Considerations Memo expresses the basis for the Final Memo and is intended to supplement it. Upon examining the Considerations Memo, the district court found that DHS failed to adequately consider the high chances of recidivism and absconding within the relevant class of aliens as well as the costs or reliance interests of the States. On the other hand, DHS argues that the Considerations Memo sufficiently addresses these factors to satisfy the arbitrary/capricious standard. The Considerations Memo states that the “public safety” factors “are to be weighed in each case to assess whether a noncitizen poses a current threat to public safety, including through a meaningful risk of recidivism.” DHS contends that this illustrates that the agency considered recidivism, and it was not required to support its position with “empirical or statistical studies.” Prometheus, 141 S. Ct. at 1160. But that is beside the point. The district court did not hold that the agency failed to consider recidivism at all. To the contrary, the court concluded that DHS failed to consider recidivism among the relevant population at issue in this case—“aliens who have been convicted of or are implicated in serious crime and aliens who have received a final order of removal.” Those are the aliens covered by § 1226(c) 16 or § 1231(a)(2). While the Considerations Memo generally relies on studies about criminality among all aliens, those studies did not account for potentially higher rates of recidivism among those “who have already been convicted of a serious crime.” 16 In fact, Congress was especially concerned with the serious harms repeat criminal aliens may cause if not detained when it passed § 1226(c). Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 518–20 (2003). 27 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 28 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 DHS does not assert that general alien criminality can substitute for data concerning the subset of convicted aliens. In fact, in 2019, DHS itself acknowledged that criminal aliens recidivate and abscond at higher rates: Of the 123,128 ERO administrative arrests in FY 2019 with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, the criminal history for this group represented 489,063 total criminal convictions and pending charges as of the date of arrest, which equates to an average of four criminal arrests/convictions per alien, highlighting the recidivist nature of the aliens that ICE arrests. Yet this actual differential between the general population and the serious previous offender population receives no mention in the Considerations Memo. And it undoubtedly should have, because repeat illegal alien offenders inflict considerable damage on innocent American citizens. On this record, DHS is unlikely to succeed in demonstrating that it considered “the relevant data” and drew a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S. Ct. at 2866 (internal quotation marks omitted). We next address the costs of this rule to the States and their reliance interests. “When an agency changes course, as DHS did here, it must ‘be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 212, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2120 (2016)). Failure to do so is fatal. DHS contends that a multi-page section in the Considerations Memo analyzing the “Impact on States” demonstrates that it adequately considered these interests before circulating the Final Memo. The district court found, however, that this analysis merely paid “lip service to the States’ concerns.” 28 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 29 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367 We are troubled by DHS’s dismissive analysis, which dots “i’s” and crosses “t’s” without actually saying anything. For example, DHS minimizes the influence of its policy on the States as maybe having some “downstream impacts.” The Considerations Memo then states that it “cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of all of these potential impacts every time it adopts a change in immigration policy.” Rather, it claims that any such “assessment” would be “uniquely difficult to conclude with certainty,” so it simply does not bother. Yet, after explicitly declining to quantify or at least reasonably describe the costs of this policy to the States, the agency audaciously concludes that “any effects from implementation of priorities guidance are unlikely to be significant, and could have a net positive effect.” As to the States’ reliance interests, the Considerations Memo flatly concludes that “no such reasonable reliance interests exist.” In a single paragraph citing no evidence, DHS concluded that the States, including Texas as a 900-mile border state, has no reliance interests in the enforcement of federal criminal immigration law according to the governing statutes. 17 This omission is more inexcusable since the States have consistently asserted their reliance interests in the context of this litigation, which has been ongoing simultaneously with DHS’s promulgation of the Final Memo and the Considerations Memo. “Stating that a factor was considered . . . is not a substitute for considering it.” Getty v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 805 F.2d 1050, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Rather, courts “must make a searching and careful inquiry to determine if [the agency] actually did consider it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). At this point, DHS has not shown a likelihood that it adequately considered the relevant costs to the States or their reliance interests in the pre-existing enforcement policy. 17 But see supra note 4. 29 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 30 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367
Under the APA, rules must be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking unless they fall within one of the APA’s exceptions. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). Such exceptions “must be narrowly construed.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171 (internal quotation marks omitted). DHS contends that its rule does not need to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking because it qualifies as a general statement of policy, which merely “advise[s] the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.” Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 197, 113 S. Ct. 2024, 2034 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a rule is merely a “policy statement,” we evaluate two criteria: “whether the rule (1) imposes any rights and obligations and (2) genuinely leaves the agency and its decision-makers free to exercise discretion.” Texas DAPA, 809 F.3d at 171 (internal quotation marks omitted). “While mindful but suspicious of the agency’s own characterization, we focus primarily on whether the rule has binding effect on agency discretion or severely restricts it.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As described above, the Final Memo overwhelmingly satisfies both criteria. Both the language found within and the mechanisms of implementing it establish that it is indeed binding, thus removing DHS personnel’s discretion to stray from the guidance or take enforcement action against an alien on the basis of a conviction alone. For the same reasons articulated supra Section II.B, the Final Memo is much more substantive than a general statement of policy and, as such, it had to undergo notice and comment procedures. Because it did not, DHS is unlikely to be successful in establishing that the Final Memo need not have been subject to notice and comments before its promulgation. 30 Case: 22-40367 Document: 00516384389 Page: 31 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 22-40367