New York v. Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New York, et al v. Trump, et al
NewYork-eastern.gif
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Full case nameStates of New York,
Massachusetts, Washington,
Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia v.
Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, in her official capacity; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the United States of America
Judge sittingNicholas G. Garaufis
James Orenstein (Magistrate)
Counsel for plaintiff(s)Lourdes Maria Rosado
Plaintiff(s)States of New York,
Massachusetts, Washington,
Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia
Defendant(s)Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, in her official capacity; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the United States of America

State of New York, et al v. Trump et al. (No. 1:17-cv-05228-NGG-JO) is a lawsuit against the rescission implemented by the Trump administration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[1] At issue are Fifth Amendment protections of due process, information use, and equal protection.

Plaintiffs claim damage in the form of "discriminatory treatment based on their national origin, without lawful justification."[2]:52

Facts and prior history[edit]

Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum establishing DACA on June 15, 2012. This policy protected certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from arrest or detention based solely on their immigration status while deferred action was in effect. Participation was granted for two years with renewal possible. DACA grantees also got work authorizations and were eligible to receive Social Security, retirement, disability benefits, and, in certain states, benefits such as driver’s licenses or unemployment insurance.

But several years later and in fulfillment of a Trump campaign promises made June 16, 2015 and August 31, 2016 the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded the Napolitano memo on September 5, 2017.[3] The Trump administration then sent the program to Congress for rework within six months.

The lawsuit seeks to maintain the protections extended to DACA grantees and to allow renewal and continued enrollment by eligible children.

Latest developments[edit]

The case was reassigned to judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, because it is related to Batalla Vidal et al. v. Baran et al., No. 1:16-cv-4756.

In late September, the parties were arguing over discovery.[4] On October 19, 2017, Judge Garaufis ordered that the Trump Administration cannot delay discovery, but over a reduced scope of documents.[5]

On December 14, 2017, government lawyers argued that discovery was improper. There was no ruling from the court.[6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Kopan, Tal (September 5, 2017). "Sessions as face of DACA decision reveals internal struggle". CNN. Retrieved 6 September 2017.
  2. ^ "Complaint New York v. Trump" (PDF). E.D.N.Y. 6 September 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2017.
  3. ^ Abramson, Alana (September 14, 2017). "Here's Everything President Trump Has Ever Said About DACA". Time. Retrieved 18 September 2017.
  4. ^ "Docket 52 re: Discovery". DC Eastern District NY. September 22, 2017. Retrieved 26 September 2017.
  5. ^ Narea, Nicole (October 18, 2017). "Trump Can't Hold Up Discovery In States' DACA Suit". Law 360. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
  6. ^ Keshner, Andrew (14 December 2017). "Feds argue ending DACA was within Trump administration's rights". Daily News. Retrieved 14 December 2017.