Cases & Developments

Order Granting Motions for Preliminary Injunctions and Setting Case Management Conferences. Set of consolidated cases where plaintiffs, several foreign nationals admitted to the United States through the Student Visitor and Exchange Program (SEVP) who learned that their status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was changed from active to terminated, sought preliminary injunctive relief against Donald J. Trump, in his official  capacity as President of the United States, Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Moises Becerra, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of ICE’s San Francisco Office of Detention and Removal. Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in changing plaintiffs’ SEVIS status. Finding in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court reasoned that “defendants’ argument that there is a distinction between having an active SEVIS record and maintaining lawful F-1 status is unpersuasive and unsupported by the record. By terminating plaintiffs’ SEVIS records, defendants altered plaintiffs’ legal status within the United States . . . the Court does not find it speculative to conclude that, in the absence of an injunction, defendants would abruptly re-terminate SEVIS records without notice.” In granting plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction, the Court also enjoined defendants from arresting and incarcerating any of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide; from transferring any of the named plaintiffs in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide from outside the jurisdiction of their residence pending the resolution of the proceedings; from imposing any adverse legal effect on any named parties in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide that otherwise may be caused by the termination of their SEVIS record; and from reversing the reinstatement of the SEVIS record of plaintiffs in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide who maintain status under 8 C.F.R. 

Order and Opinion Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Following the Court granting plaintiffs’ amended motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), it directed defendants to reinstate plaintiffs’ student status and SEVIS authorization, retroactive to March 31, 2025, and considered whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. To effectuate the latter, plaintiffs must establish that they have a: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the damage to the opposing party; and (4) that granting the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Based upon the allegations of the Amended Complaint and the specific facts in plaintiffs’ 133 declarations, the Court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim and that defendants’ termination of the SEVIS registration exceeded the bounds of statutory and regulatory authority and was therefore unlawful. In concluding that defendants’ actions were both arbitrary and capricious, the Court reasoned that defendants failed to suggest any lawful grounds for termination of the SEVIS record and plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the agency failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Court also found that absent temporary relief, plaintiffs demonstrated that they face several forms of irreparable harm, including losses in scholarships, career opportunities, research grants, access to education, and the ability to apply for optional practical training (OPT). As to the balance of harms, the Court concluded that plaintiffs stand to lose their lawful status, access to education, and future career prospects, but by contrast, the temporary nature of the interim relief poses minimal harm to defendants; reasoning that there is substantial public interest in ensuring government agencies abide by federal laws even when they pursue their policy prerogatives.  

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN), the largest Latinx organization in the state of Oregon, Augustana Lutheran Church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, San Francisco Interfaith Council, and Westminster Presbyterian Church allege that defendants, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pete Flores, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection enacted an unconstitutional and unlawful policy that violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On January 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memo eliminating the “protected areas” designation and prohibition on ICE enforcement in those areas (the “Huffman Memo”), which was followed further on January 21, 2025, when former Acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello issued a memo entitled “Common Sense Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” charging ICE Assistant Field Office Directors (AFODs) and Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASACs) with determining whether, where, and when to conduct immigration enforcement in or near a protected area/sensitive locations (such as the premises of schools, places of worship, funerals, and other religious ceremonies) (the “Vitello Memo”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ choice to end protections for sensitive locations has harmed plaintiffs and protected areas themselves. Plaintiffs allege that following the revocation of protections for sensitive locations, many entities such as schools, daycares, medical facilities, foodbanks, community-based organizations, social services agencies, and places of worship serving large immigrant populations witnessed a decline in the number of people attending events and seeking services which has impaired the entities’ missions and abilities to provide community care. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violated the APA by way of being arbitrary and capricious, being contrary to constitutional rights, and that defendants have violated both the RFRA and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue an order declaring defendants’ rescission of protections for sensitive locations (1) unconstitutional, void, and of no effect, and (2) violative of RFRA; and further to find that the Huffman Memo is unlawful because it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” and thus, to vacate the Huffman Memo in its entirely, enjoin defendants from taking any immigration enforcement actions that are not authorized in accordance with the historical 2021 “Mayorkas Memo” that accorded especial consideration of immigration enforcement in so called sensitive locations. 

Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, several students affected by defendants’ termination of F-1 student status and proposed class members allege that defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ICE’s Boston Field Office, ICE’s Manchester Subfield Office, Kristi Noem, and Todd Lyons unilaterally and unlawfully terminated plaintiffs’ F-1 student status. As of April 11, 2025, plaintiffs allege that at least 112 students’ F-1 status had been terminated based on Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) termination. Plaintiffs allege that the description of the SEVIS termination reason was changed from “failure to maintain status” to “other” which is a new category on the SEVIS website as of April 9, 2025. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions are a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they are arbitrary and capricious and are a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs ask that the Court assume jurisdiction over the matter; certify the case as a class action; declare that defendants’ termination of plaintiffs’ and class members’ F-1 student status violate the APA and plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process rights and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring defendants to reinstate the F-1 student status and corresponding SEVIS immigration record for all students at any education institutions in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico who had their F-1 student status terminated and had their SEVIS immigration record correspondingly terminated.

Order Denying in part Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, including several international students studying at the University of Michigan and Wayne State University allege that defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other government officials, violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) following the termination of plaintiffs’ records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and sought a temporary restraining order. Defendants maintain that plaintiffs’ termination status was based on their criminal or immigration histories as some plaintiffs were previously arrested for “assault excluding sexual” and “assault – 4th Degree.” Defendants contend that SEVIS terminations do not automatically revoke F-1 student status and defendants have no reason to believe that the students had lost F-1 status or were in danger of facing removal proceedings following their SEVIS terminations. Defendants further asserted that “prudential visa revocation—on its own—does not automatically revoke F-1 status.” In denying plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court found that it could not conclude whether the termination of a record within the SEVIS database is synonymous with a termination of F-1 status due to the limited record. The Court also found that due to insufficient information from the parties, it was unable to ascertain whether the termination of a SEVIS record—absent a termination of F-1 status, insofar as that is possible––carries legal consequences and is thus a reviewable final agency action under the APA. Further, because plaintiffs can continue taking classes and defendants represented that they had no reason to believe plaintiffs are removable, the Court did not find any immediate and irreparable harm threatening plaintiffs or the public interest sufficient to grant a temporary restraining order. The Court scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction for May 19, 2025.