Description: Lawsuit claiming that Department of Homeland Security failed to consider environmental impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, of discretionary immigration actions.
-
Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Mayorkas
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/13/2021 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Certiorari Denied in Case Alleging Failure to Comply with NEPA for Immigration Policies. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims that the federal government failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with certain immigration programs and policies, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The certiorari petition—which raised the questions of whether the Department of Homeland Security’s NEPA procedures constituted reviewable final agency action and whether the Ninth Circuit improperly denied standing to the petitioners based on an erroneous standard—asserted that “[i]mmigrants and their children almost universally are responsible for significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than they would have been if they never emigrated from their home countries,” and that the Biden administration’s “heightened focus on greatly augmenting the population through the expansion of the pathways of immigration to the U.S.” was “at cross purposes” with the administration’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. 10/18/2021 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Supreme Court Review Sought of Ninth Circuit Decision Rejecting NEPA Challenge to Immigration Policies. Parties filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claims that the federal government failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in connection with certain immigration programs and policies, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The petitioners asserted, among other things, that “[i]mmigrants and their children almost universally are responsible for significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than they would have been if they never emigrated from their home countries,” and that the Biden administration’s “heightened focus on greatly augmenting the population through the expansion of the pathways of immigration to the U.S.” was “at crosspurposes with” the administration’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. The certiorari petition raised the question of whether the Department of Homeland Security’s NEPA procedures constituted reviewable final agency action. The petition also presented the question of whether the Ninth Circuit improperly denied standing to the petitioners based on an erroneous standard. -
Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Mayorkas
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/19/2021 Opinion Download Dismissal of two claims and summary judgment for remaining claims affirmed. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Rejection of NEPA Challenges to Immigration Policies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on claims that the Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to consider environmental impacts of certain immigration programs and policies. The plaintiffs—identified as environmentalists, environmental groups, natural resource conservation districts, and cattle ranchers—alleged, among other things, that the immigration actions resulted in increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Ninth Circuit found that a manual that described how the Department would implement NEPA was not a final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that immigration “programs” challenged by the plaintiffs, including Temporary Protective Status and long-term nonimmigrant visas, were not discrete agency actions subject to review. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their remaining claims. -
Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Johnson
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/01/2020 Order Download Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment granted. Finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. 05/24/2019 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed by defendant in support of cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 04/23/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Memorandum filed by plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment on Counts III, IV, and V of the amended complaint. 09/30/2018 Order Download Defendants' motion for partial dismissal granted. 01/22/2018 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed by federal defendants in support of partial motion to dismiss. 01/22/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Partial motion to dismiss amended complaint filed by federal defendants. 01/22/2018 Order Download Motion to dismiss (filed in October 2017) denied as moot. 12/08/2017 Complaint Download Amended complaint filed. 10/06/2017 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss complaint in part for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim filed by federal defendants. 09/12/2017 Order Download Defendants' motion to stay granted. 06/01/2017 Motion Download Motion to stay filed by federal defendants. Trump Administration Sought to Stay Action Alleging That Obama Administration Immigration Actions Required NEPA Review. On June 1, 2017, the federal defendants filed a motion to stay the action, arguing that executive orders issued by President Trump required DHS to review and potentially rescind or revise many of the policies at issue, rendering the proceeding moot. 10/17/2016 Complaint Download Complaint filed. A group of plaintiffs filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Southern District of California in October 2016 in which they alleged that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had failed to comply with NEPA when taking discretionary actions with respect to immigration. The plaintiffs included Arizona conservation districts, conservation district officials, nonprofit groups with missions to reduce or stabilize population growth and reduce immigration, and members of such organizations. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS discretionary actions resulted in in significant environmental impacts, including increases in greenhouse gas emissions, throughout the United States. The complaint alleged, among other things, that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were increasing due to “immigration-driven population growth” and that emissions associated with immigration to the U.S. were equal to five percent of the increase in global emissions since 1980.