MOL ISO Motion for Partial SJ on FVRA Claims 2020.10.27.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:19-cv-07993-GBD-OTW Document 268 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and STATE OF VERMONT, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP CIVIL ACTION NO. AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; KENNETH T. 19 Civ. 07777 (GBD) CUCCINELLI II, in his official capacity as Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and of the Deputy Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK, AFRICAN SERVICES COMMITTEE, ASIAN AMERICAN FEDERATION, CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, and CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC., Plaintiffs, v. KEN CUCCINELLI, in his purported official capacity as Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, CIVIL ACTION NO. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; 19 Civ. 07993 (GBD) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES; CHAD F. WOLF, in his purported official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:19-cv-07993-GBD-OTW Document 268 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 A. The FVRA and the HSA establish a framework for the order of succession for Senate- confirmed roles at the Department of Homeland Security. ......................................................... 3 B. The succession order in Executive Order 13753 governs for vacancies due to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s resignation, death, or inability to perform the functions of the office. 5 C. McAleenan’s performance of the Secretary’s functions has no force or effect because he assumed the position in violation of Executive Order 13753. .................................................... 8 D. Congress and courts have questioned the legality of McAleenan’s appointment. .............. 9 E. Defendants unsuccessfully attempt to cure McAleenan’s improper issuance of the Rule. 12 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13 A. Legal Standards .................................................................................................................. 13 B. McAleenan’s exercise of the Secretary’s authority is void under the FVRA and the APA. ............................................................................................................................................ 14 1. Nielsen did not confer authority on McAleenan to serve in the event of her resignation. ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2. McAleenan did not have authority to promulgate the Public Charge Rule. .................. 15 3. There is no merit to DHS’s arguments that McAleenan properly became Acting Secretary. ............................................................................................................................... 20 a. The April Memorandum supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the succession order. 21 b. Nielsen’s invocation of her authority under 113(g) of the HSA does not change the result. .................................................................................................................................. 22 c. The April Delegation is binding. ................................................................................ 24 C. McAleenan’s unlawful issuance of the Rule cannot be ratified by Wolf. ......................... 25 1. McAleenan’s promulgation of the Rule may not be ratified. ......................................... 25 2. An Acting Secretary may not amend the order of succession........................................ 26 3. Gaynor never lawfully assumed the position of Acting Secretary. ................................ 28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30 i Case 1:19-cv-07993-GBD-OTW Document 268 Filed 10/27/20 Page 3 of 38 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Air India v. Brien, No. 00-cv-1707, 2002 WL 34923740 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2002) ............................................20 Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) .................................................................................................................13 Bullock v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 4:20-cv-00062-BMM, 2020 WL 5746836 (D. Mont. Sept. 25, 2020) .............................27 Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 8:20-cv-02118 (PX), 2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) ........................... passim Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 8:20-cv-2118 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2020) ................................................................................24 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................13 Cook v. New York State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................23 Don’t Shoot Portland v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-2040 (D.D.C. July 27, 2020) ...............................................................................10 Freytag v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) ...................................................................................................................3 Guertin v. United States, 743 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2014).....................................................................................................14 Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-05883 (JSW), 2020 WL 5798269 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) ........................ passim L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) ............................................................................. 4, 18-19, 27 La Clinica De La Raza et al v. Trump et al, No. 4:19-cv-04717 (May 20, 2020) .........................................................................................10 La Clinica De La Raza et al v. Trump et al, No. 4:19-cv-04780 (Sept. 24, 2020) ........................................................................................22 ii Case 1:19-cv-07993-GBD-OTW Document 268 Filed 10/27/20 Page 4 of 38 La Clinica De La Raza v. Trump, No. 19-cv-04980 (PJH), 2020 WL 4569462 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2020) ........................... passim Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (2013) ...................................................................................................................27 NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) .................................................................................................................3 Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. USCIS, No. 19-cv-3283 (RDM), 2020 WL 5995206 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020) ............................... passim R.I. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. United States, 304 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................13 RadLax Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639 (2012) .................................................................................................................23 State of New York et al v. Donald Trump et al., No. 1:17-cv-05228 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020) ............................................................ 10, 20-21 SW Gen., Inc. v. NLRB, 796 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................15 United States v. Harris, 838 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016).......................................................................................................23 United States v. Mingo, 340 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................21 CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 .........................................................................................................................28 FEDERAL STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ..............................................................................................................................13, 19 § 3345............................................................................................................................... passim § 3346..............................................................................................................................4,29, 30 § 3347...................................................................................................................................4, 27 § 3348............................................................................................................................... passim § 3349.......................................................................................................................................29 6 U.S.C. § 112............................................................................................................................