This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Fifth Amendment
Administrative Procedures Act

County of San Diego v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, et al.

Published: Aug. 7, 2020 | Result Date: Jun. 5, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 3, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-00631-L-AHG Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

M. James Lorenz

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Timothy M. White
(Office of the San Diego County Counsel)


Defendant

Kyle W. Hoffman
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff County of San Diego filed a lawsuit against Defendants Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen and Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing Duties as Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Ronald D. Vitiello, among others, alleging that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they discontinued the Safe Release program.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act and Fifth Amendment when they discontinued the Safe Release program, under which Defendants provided asylum seekers with assistance in reaching their final destinations within the United States pending adjudication of their asylum claims. Plaintiff contended as a result of the discontinued Safe Release program, Plaintiff suffered immediate and apparent harms in combating the humanitarian and public health issues created by the end of the Safe Release program, which entailed providing personnel to shelter and care for the asylum seekers and their families. Plaintiff contended when Defendants ended the Safe Release program without an opportunity to comment, Defendants violated the APA's notice and comment requirement, and committed an agency action that was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Plaintiff lastly contended Defendants sudden termination of the Safe Release
program without notice and comment resulted in the deprivation of a property right protected by the Fifth Amendment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied Plaintiff's contentions and filed a motion to dismiss.

Result

The court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss after finding that judicial review of the APA claim was precluded because the federal government had not waived sovereign immunity, and that no controlling authority indicated a county was permitted to assert a procedural due process claim for the deprivation of a property interest in funds expended for immigration related expenses.


#135126

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390