Regents of the Univ. of Cal. & Janet Napolitano v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. & Kirstjen Nielsen

Good Law
298 F. Supp. 3d 1304
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2018No. C 17–05211 WHA; No. C 17–05235 WHA; No. C 17–05329 WHA; No. C 17–05380 WHA; No. C 17–05813 WHACalifornia4,451 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Alsup, J.

INTRODUCTION

In these challenges to the government's rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the government moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .

STATEMENT

This order incorporates the statement set forth in the order dated January 9, 2018, largely denying dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(1) and largely granting plaintiffs' motion for provisional relief (Dkt. No. 234). This order, however, addresses a separate motion by the government to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim for relief under FRCP 12(b)(6). This order sustains three claims for relief but finds that the rest fall short.

ANALYSIS

1. APA CLAIMS UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A).

For the same reasons that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission of DACA was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, as explained in the January 9 order, the government's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' APA claims under 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) is DENIED .

2. APA CLAIMS UNDER 5…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.