While litigation in some cases remains ongoing, this page is no longer being updated. Lawfare is keeping it available as a historical resource. It was last updated on Dec. 23, 2018.

The Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant parents and children at the U.S. border has generated several legal challenges. On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order announcing the administration's preference to detain families together while continuing to prosecute all cases of illegal border crossings referred to the Justice Department. The order requires the Justice Department to seek a revision to the consent decree on detention of young children reached in Flores v. Reno.

In early November 2018, the administration also announced an amendment to the rules governing asylum requests, rendering ineligible for asylum those who attempt to enter the United States in violation of a subsequent presidential proclamation establishing that the U.S. will only accept applications for asylum at recognized ports of entry.

Below is a roundup of all relevant documents in ongoing litigation related to the administration’s policies on both immigration detention and asylum, including the government’s request to modify the Flores settlement, along with key legal documents from past litigation. We will update this post as further information comes in.

Any queries or additional documents should be directed to [email protected].

ASYLUM

Ongoing cases

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:18-cv-06810-JST )

O.A. v. Trump (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-02718-RDM )

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2018 re: 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by O.A., K.S., D.S., G.Z., A.V., C.A. The 6 Motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE. The Court ORDERS that this case and case no. 18cv2838 be CONSOLIDATED, with this case being designated as the lead case. The parties shall meet and confer as to a proposed schedule going forward. Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint by end of day on 12/18/2018. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 12/21/2018. The 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are HELD IN ABEYANCE. The parties may file supplemental briefs/additional motions on or before 12/28/2018; Opposition briefs due 1/11/2019; Replies due by 1/17/2019. If there are any other developments, the parties shall confer and file a joint status report. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

SMSR v. Trump (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 18-cv-02838)

This case was consolidated with O.A. v. Trump.

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2018 re: 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES, INC., R.S.P.S., CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION, S.M.S.R. The 6 Motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE. The Court ORDERS that this case be CONSOLIDATED with case no. 18cv2718, and that case no. 18cv2718 be designated as the lead case. The parties shall meet and confer as to a proposed schedule going forward. Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint by end of day on 12/18/2018. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

FAMILY SEPARATIONS

Judgments in illegal entry prosecutions

Compilation of 2,598 written judgments in illegal entry cases from mid-May 2018 through June 2018. Documents collected and provided by Brad Heath at USA Today.

Ongoing cases

Ms. L v. ICE (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD)

Mejia-Mejia v. ICE (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-01445-PLF)

Petition for Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief (06/19/2018)

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (06/19/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute order: (06/20/2018)

The parties shall appear for a hearing on plaintiff's emergency motion 4 for a temporary restraining order on June 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 29A before Judge Paul L. Friedman. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 20, 2018. (lcplf1)

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (06/21/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion for Temporary Restarining Order Denied (for reasons discussed on the record) (06/21/2018) (Access restricted)

Joint Status Report (06/22/2018) (Access Restricted) ​Note: Access to this filing is restricted. However, Politico reports that the filing states that Mejia-Mejia will be reunited with her son as of June 21, 2018:



"ORR has already begun the process of conducting the necessary checks to fulfill its statutory mandate to assure itself that Plaintiff...is capable of providing for the child's physical and mental well-being," the government lawyers said. "ORR expects to be able to release [the boy] to Plaintiffs' custody, once those checks can be completed."​

Minute order (06/22/2018)

Upon the representation of the parties in their joint status report, plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order is denied as moot. Plaintiff shall inform the Court of the manner in which she intends to proceed in this case on or before June 29, 2018.

Notice of Intent to Continue Prosecuting Case by Beata Mariana De Jesus Mejia-Mejia (06/29/2018) (Access restricted)

Amended Complaint (07/13/2018) (Access restricted)

Order (08/07/2018)

Motion for Declaratory Judgement (08/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Joint Status Report (08/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File (08/31/2018) (Access restricted)

Memorandum in Opposition (09/28/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (10/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum (11/05/2018) (Access restricted)

MGU v. Nielsen (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-01458)

Defendants must reunify plaintiff E.F. with her son on or before midnight on Friday, July 20, 2018.

Flores v. Sessions (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR )

It is hereby ordered that the ex parte application of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and ACLU Foundation of Southern California to file a brief of amici curiae is GRANTED, and the proposed brief submitted with the motion shall be e-filed within three (3) days of this order.

On June 29, 2018, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Chicago, the City of New York, and the City & County of San Francisco ("the Cities") filed an Ex Parte Application seeking leave to file a brief as amicus curiae. Pursuant to this Court's Initial Standing Order, any party intending to oppose the Ex Parte Application was required to file an opposition by July 2, 2018. See Initial Standing Order at 9 107 . No such opposition has been filed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Cities' Ex Parte Application, and ORDERS the Cities to file the proposed amicus brief found in Docket Entry No. 451-1 within three (3) days of the date of this Order. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 ("The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of [a] motion...."). IT IS SO ORDERED.

The cause is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion to enforce shall be taken under submission and a written order will issue. The status conference was held. The Court grants leave for Defendants to augment the record with their response to Plaintiff's declarations. Any response shall be filed by August 10, 2018. After the Special Master/Independent Monitor is appointed, the Court will instruct the Special Master/Independent Monitor to review Defendants' response, if any, to Plaintiffs' declarations. By August 10, 2018, the parties shall meet and confer to file a joint status report on whether the parties can stipulate to a candidate for the position of Special Master/Independent Monitor and may submit proposed language defining the parameters of such appointment. If no agreement can be reached, each side may nominate two candidates for the position for the Court to consider. If the Court does not find any of the nominees to be an appropriate fit, the Court shall select the Special Master/Independent Monitor. The Juvenile Coordinators shall continue to perform their duties as outlined in Section X of the Flores Agreement. They shall file an annual compliance report by July 1 of each year until the Court determines otherwise.

ORDER RE PROPOSED SPECIAL MASTER/INDEPENDENT MONITOR by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 9/4/2018, the Court gave the parties notice of its intention to appoint Retired United States Immigration Judge Carol A. King to the position of Special Master/Independent Monitor 484 . The Court hereby withdraws its nomination of Ms. King for the Special Master/Independent Monitor position. Instead, the Court nominates Andrea Sheridan Ordin to the position of Special Master/Independent Monitor. By no later than 10/1/2018, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating whether they have any objections to the appointment of Ms. Ordin as the Special Master/Independent Monitor.

The Court, having appointed Andrea Sheridan Ordin as Special Master/Independent Monitor ("the Monitor") in this case, hereby schedules a Status Conference for 10/15/2018 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The parties' Counsel, the Monitor, and Juvenile Coordinators Henry A. Moak, Jr. and Deane Dougherty shall attend the status conference. The Court requests that Defendants serve a copy of this Order upon Mr. Moak and Ms. Dougherty in order to give them notice of the status conference.

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Reconsidering re Order (10/12/2018)

Minutes of Status Conference (10/15/2018)

The Court construes Defendants' ex parte application for partial reconsideration of order appointing Special Master/Independent Monitor 498 as a motion ("Motion"). In accordance with the motion schedule under Local Rule 7-9 and 7-10, the opposition is due by 10/19/2018 and the reply is due by 10/26/2018. Thereafter, the Motion will be set for hearing on 11/9/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court sua sponte stays those aspects of the Order Appointing Special Master/Independent Monitor 494 relating to enforcement of the Court's 7/30/2018 Order, pending resolution of the Motion. The Court introduces Ms. Ordin and thanks her for accepting the assignment of Special Master at a drastically reduced hourly rate and treating as pro bono all hours expended prior to her 10/17/2018 Effective Date. The Court explains its purpose in appointing the Special Master and provides the parties time to meet and confer with her after adjournment of the status conference.

On 10/5/2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Andrea Sheridan Ordin as the Special Master/Independent Monitor ("Appointment Order"), which authorized her to (inter alia) "[m]onitor compliance with the Court's 6/27/2017 and 7/30/2018 Orders, and other Court orders issued" during her term. 10/12/2018, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application for Partial Reconsideration of the Appointment Order, wherein Defendants request that the Court exempt the 7/30/2018 Order from the scope of the Appointment Order, along with any other Orders the Court issues during the Monitor's Term. On 10/15/2018, the Court construed Defendants' Ex Parte Application as a motion for partial reconsideration, set a briefing schedule on the motion, and sua sponte stayed those aspects of the Appointment Order that relate to the enforcement of the Court's 7/30/2018 Order the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and LIFTS the stay of the Appointment Order. The Court VACATES the 11/9/2018 hearing.

Notice of Motion and Motion to File Amicus Brief Filed by Amicus 18 Cities and Counties (11/07/2018)

Minutes of in Chambers (11/09/2018)

The Court GRANTS the Cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Austin, Boston, Cambridge, Columbus, Houston, New Haven, Oakland, Philadelphia, Providence, San Jose, Seattle, and Sommerville, along with the City and County of San Francisco, Los Angeles County, and Santa Clara County's (collectively, "the Cities") Unopposed Ex Parte Application seeking leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, and ORDERS the Cities to file the proposed amicus brief found in Docket Entry No. 519-1 within three court days.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: In the interest of conserving judicial resources, the Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Flores Agreement 516 until Defendants publish the final regulations. At this time, Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because their Motion prompted Defendants to reaffirm their obligation to refrain from immediately implementing the final rule. Accordingly, the Court ISSUES the following rulings: (1) The 11/30/2018 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion is VACATED; (2) Upon issuing the final regulations, Defendants shall forthwith file a notice to that effect; (3) Within seven days of the publication of the final regulations, the parties shall file simultaneous supplemental briefing addressing whether the regulations are consistent with the terms of the Flores Agreement; and (4) The matter shall thereafter be deemed submitted. The Court shall reschedule a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion if it concludes that oral argument is warranted. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

W.S.R. v. Sessions et al (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1:18-cv-04265)

Note: Access to this case is restricted. However, according to USA Today, the lawsuit claims that W.S.R. and his father:

were told they would be separated for “two or three days, five at most,” and that they would then be deported … Instead, the father is being held at West Texas Detention Facility in Sierra Blanca, Texas, and W.S.R. is in the care of Heartland Alliance in Chicago. The two allege they were seeking asylum in the U.S. after “the boss of a drug trafficking mafia threatened to kill” them. The drug boss believed that the two provided police with information that resulted in his arrest.

Complaint (06/20/2018) (Access restricted)

Case Assigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang (06/20/2018)

Motion by Defendants to Reassign Case (06/22/2018) (Access restricted)

Supplement to Motion to Reassign Case (06/22/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (06/26/2017)

Without objection, the Federal Defendants have moved to reassign Case No. 18 C 4291 under Local Rule 40.4. The cases substantially overlap, but factually (the same Defendants and the same custodial location) and legally (primarily, the interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement). So there would be a substantial savings in judicial time and effort, Local Rule 40.4(b)(2), for the same judge to handle both cases, and both cases can be put on the same litigation track with simultaneous court hearings. The motion thus is granted. AN initial status hearing is set for 07/11/2018 at 10:45 a.m.

Amended Complaint (06/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Plaintiff W.S.R for Temporary Restraining Order (06/29/2018) (Access restricted)

For the reasons stated in the Order and during the motion hearing, Plaintiff’s motion for TRO is granted in part and converted to a preliminary-injunction motion in part. Motion hearing set for 07/05/2018 at 10:00AM. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion states that the West Texas Defendants will be voluntarily dismissed in light of the change in detention location. The government also will confer with Plaintiff’s counsel on facilitating counsel’s access to Plaintiff’s father and on facilitating communication between Plaintiff and his father.

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by W.S.R. of Defendants Heartland Alliance International, LLC, Susan Trudeau, LaSalle Corrections West, LLC and Mike Sheppard (06/30/2018) (Access restricted)

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (07/02/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply by W.S.R. to Motion by Plaintiff W.S.R. for Temporary Restraining Order, Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (07/04/2018) (Access restricted)

Affidavit of Karen L Hoffmann Attaching Immigration Judge Bond Orders (07/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/05/2018)

Hearing held on Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction. The Court takes the motions under advisement. By 07/06/2018, Plaintiffs shall upload (to the 18-cv-4265 docket is sufficient) the written decisions of the four immigration judges referenced during the hearing. By 07/06/2018, the government shall upload its filing made in the Flores consent-decree case. The Court held a brief under-seal portion of the hearing with W.S.R., who was assisted by a Portuguese-English interpreter. The status hearing of 07/11/2018 remains in place.

Supplement to Motion Hearing (07/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Supplement to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Reply in Response to Motion, and Request for Emergency Hearing (07/06/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/06/2018)

In light of Plaintiff's supplement filed today, the Court will alert the parties if a further hearing by telephone is deemed necessary. The Court notes that, on the current record, the government has not expressed any doubt on the father-son relationship asserted by W.S.R., nor has it offered any evidence that reunification would pose a danger to W.S.R.

Response by Plaintiff W.S.R. to Defendants’ Notice (07/11/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/11/2018)

Status hearing held. The government reported that it is committed to complying with the reunification order, which requires reunification by 1:48 p.m. on 07/12/2018. Government counsel also shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel, via e-mail, of the details of the transfer from ORR to ICE, the reunification location and, if applicable, the circumstances of the release, within 30 minutes of government counsel learning that information. A status hearing is set for 07/13/2018 at 10 a.m. But if the government filed, by 6 p.m. the evening of 07/12/2018, a status report that the reunification has occurred, then the status hearing will be reset for the week of 07/23 to discuss what remains of the litigation here.

Motion by Plaintiff W.S.R. For Protective Order Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5.2(e)(1) (07/12/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/12/2018)

Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for protective order is granted. The Court will undertake a review on how to effectuate the redactions.

Status Report (07/12/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/12/2018)

In light of the status report confirming that reunification occurred before the deadline, the status hearing of 07/13/2018 is reset to 07/25/2018 at 08:45 a.m. The parties shall confer on what they believe is the next step of the litigation and file a joint status report (with competing positions, if necessary) on 07/23/2018.

Status Report Joint by W.S.R. (07/23/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Plaintiff W.S.R. to Transfer Case (07/25/2018) (Access restricted)

Plaintiffs’ NOTICE of Motion by Amy Maldonado for Presentment of Motion to Transfer Case (07/25/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Plaintiff W.S.R. Dismissal of Defendant Heartland Human Care Services Inc. Only (Agreed) (07/25/2018) (Access Restricted)

Minute Entry (07/25/2018)

Status hearing held. Plaintiff's out-of-state attorneys appeared by telephone; local counsel and counsel for Defendants appeared in court. Plaintiff's agreed motion to dismiss Defendant Heartland Human Care Services, Inc. is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Heartland are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk's Office shall terminate Defendant Heartland as a named defendant. Defendants' response (in one filing for both 18 C 4265 and 18 C 4291) to Plaintiff's motion to transfer due 08/03/2018. Plaintiff's reply due 08/08/2018. Ultimately, the parties ought to consider that if there are non-moot claims (as there almost surely are), then a transfer to another District is not supposed to have a substantive effect, so Rule 12 motions (whether based on subject matter jurisdiction or the merits) should not enter into the transfer calculus. Status hearing set for 08/13/2018 at 8:30 a.m. The government acknowledged that the aspect of the preliminary injunction barring deportation of Plaintiff without his father remains in full force and effect.

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Transfer Case (08/03/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply by Plaintiff W.S.R. to Memorandum in Opposition Motion (08/08/2018) (Access restricted)

Supplement to Motion to Transfer Case (08/09/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (08/09/2018)

Plaintiffs W.S.R. and C.D.A. filed a supplement on the docket in both cases, reporting that C.D.A. has been released from the Birks facility. The supplement also says in part, "Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Transfer" be withdrawn. The Court wishes to confirm that the supplement applies to W.S.R., that is, that W.S.R. is also requesting that his motion to transfer be withdrawn. W.S.R.'s counsel shall provide the answer by sending an email to the courtroom deputy, cc:'ing the defense counsel of record, as soon as practicable.

Minute Entry (08/09/2018)

Pursuant to the prior docket entry, Plaintiffs' counsel has reported that W.S.R. too withdraws the transfer motion. Each Plaintiff's transfer motion 50 is terminated as withdrawn. In light of the withdrawal of the motion, the Court directs the parties to confer on the next step of the litigation. Specifically, it might make sense for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that specifies the theories on which the requested declaratory judgment and fee-shifting is sought; the government would presumably move to dismiss it; and a briefing schedule would be set on the dismissal motion. That would put both sides on the same page before launching into briefing. Also, presumably Plaintiffs could file the amended complaint as a consolidated amended complaint for both Plaintiffs, and then 18-cv-4291 could be administratively terminated so that the parties (and the Court) need upload filings onto only one docket (all the past filings in 18-cv-4291 would be deemed operative in 18-cv-4265). The status hearing time of 8:30 a.m. is reset to 11:30 a.m., on the same date, 08/13/2018. Any counsel may appear via phone by notifying the courtroom deputy by 2 p.m. on the prior business day. If the parties need more time to confer, then they may contact the courtroom deputy to request a continuance of the status hearing.

Stipulation re Briefing Schedule (08/10/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (08/10/2018)

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of both Plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment and attorneys' fees and costs under Case Number 18-cv-4265 by 08/27/2018. The government shall file its motion to dismiss by 09/17/2018. Plaintiffs shall respond by 10/01/2018. Those principal briefs may both use 25 pages. The government's reply is due by 10/09/2018 (10/08/2018 is a federal holiday), limited to 15 pages. The status hearing of 08/13/2018 is reset to 11/07/2018 at 8:30 a.m. After the filing of the consolidated Amended Complaint in 18-cv-4265, the Court will deem all prior filings in 18-cv-4291 as operative in 18-cv-4265, and will administratively close 18-cv-4291. All future filings shall be made only in 18-cv-4265.

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (08/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Defendants (09/17/2018) (Access restricted)

Memorandum by W.S.R. in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (10/01/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply to Memorandum in Opposition (10/09/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (11/06/2018)

Per R. 63, the Second Amended Complaint was filed on this docket, so this case is now consolidated with C.D.A.'s case. All of the filings in that case are deemed to be operative in this case, and all future filings have been and will be made in this case. So Case No. 18-cv-4291 is administratively terminated. In light of the fully briefed motion to dismiss, the status hearing of 11/07/2018 is reset to 12/17/2018 at 8:30 a.m.

Minute Entry (12/14/2018)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court has the fully briefed motion to dismiss 25 under advisement. The status hearing of 12/17/2018 is reset to 01/24/2019 at 10:00 AM.Emailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 12/14/2018)



​C.D.A. v. Sessions et al (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1:18-cv-04291)

Complaint (06/20/2018)

Case assigned to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo (06/21/2018)

Minute entry: (06/25/2018)

Status hearing set for 7/5/2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Executive Committee Order (06/26/2018)

Case reassigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang for all further proceedings. Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo no longer assigned to the case pursuant to Local Rule 40.4.

Minute Entry (06/27/2018)

An initial status hearing is set for 07/11/2018 at 10:45 a.m.

Amended Complaint (06/27/2018)

Minute Entry (06/28/2018)

Plaintiff’s counsel called the courtroom deputy to report that Plaintiff will be filing an emergency motion and to ask for a time to present the motion tomorrow (06/29/2018). The motion hearing is set for 10 a.m. on 06/29/2018. Any out-of-town counsel may appear by telephone by providing a contact number to the courtroom deputy.

For the reasons stated in the Order and during the motion hearing, Plaintiff’s motion for TRO is granted in part and converted to a preliminary-injunction motion in part. Motion hearing set for 07/05/2018 at 10:00AM. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion states that the West Texas Defendants will be voluntarily dismissed in light of the change in detention location. The government also will confer with Plaintiff’s counsel on facilitating counsel’s access to Plaintiff’s father and on facilitating communication between Plaintiff and his father.

Minute Entry (06/29/2018)

On scheduling, the current briefing schedule calls for a defense response on 07/02/2018 and for Plaintiff’s reply on 07/04/2018 by 5 p.m., with the hearing set for 07/05/2018 at 10 a.m. If Plaintiff’s counsel wants extra time to file the reply, specifically until 2 p.m. on 07/05/2018, then the Court can hold the motion hearing on 07/06/2018 at 10 a.m. If Plaintiff wishes to adjust the schedule in this way, then counsel shall notify defense counsel and the courtroom deputy of that decision by 12 p.m. on 07/03/2018. Any counsel may participate by phone in the hearing (regardless of when it is held) by providing a contact number to the courtroom deputy the business day before. Lastly, the upcoming briefs may be combined to address both 18-cv-4265 and 18-cv-4291 (there is no need to write individualized responses/replies for the respective cases.

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by C.D.A. of Defendants Heartland Alliance International, LLC and Susan Trudeau (06/30/2018) (Access restricted) Motion by Defendants for Leave to File Excess Pages (07/02/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute entry (07/02/2018):

The government’s motion for leave to file excess pages is granted. The response may consume as many pages as needed (based on the current estimate of around 20 pages). Plaintiff’s reply ma yuse the same number of pages as the response.

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for temporary restraining order (07/02/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply by C.D.A. to Motion by Plaintiff C.D.A. for Temporary Restraining Order Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (07/04/2018) (Access restricted)

Affidavit of Karen L Hoffman Attaching Immigration Judge Bond Orders (07/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/05/2018)

Hearing held on Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction. The Court takes the motions under advisement. By 07/06/2018, Plaintiffs shall upload (to the 18-cv-4265 docket is sufficient) the written decisions of the four immigration judges referenced during the hearing. By 07/06/2018, the government shall upload its filing made in the Flores consent-decree case. The Court held a brief under-seal portion of the hearing with W.S.R., who was assisted by a Portuguese-English interpreter. The status hearing of 07/11/2018 remains in place.

Supplement to Motion Hearing (07/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Supplement to Reply to Response to Motion, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Request for Emergency Hearing (07/06/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/06/2018)

In light of Plaintiff's supplement filed today, R. 33, the Court will alert the parties if a further hearing by telephone is deemed necessary. The Court notes that, on the current record, the government has not expressed any doubt on the father-son relationship asserted by C.D.A., nor has it offered any evidence that reunification would pose a danger to C.D.A.

Response by Plaintiff C.D.A. to Defendants’ Notice (07/11/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/11/2018)

Status hearing held. The government reported that it is committed to complying with the reunification order, which requires reunification by 1:48 p.m. on 07/12/2018. Government counsel also shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel, via e-mail, of the details of the transfer from ORR to ICE, the reunification location and, if applicable, the circumstances of the release, within 30 minutes of government counsel learning that information. A status hearing is set for 07/13/2018 at 10 a.m. But if the government filed, by 6 p.m. the evening of 07/12/2018, a status report that the reunification has occurred, then the status hearing will be reset for the week of 07/23 to discuss what remains of the litigation here.

Motion by Plaintiff C.D.A. For Protective Order Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5.2(e)(1) (07/12/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/12/2018)

Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for protective order is granted. The Court will undertake a review on how to effectuate the redactions.

Status Report (07/12/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (07/12/2018)

In light of the status report confirming that reunification occurred before the deadline, the status hearing of 07/13/2018 is reset to 07/25/2018 at 08:45 a.m. The parties shall confer on what they believe is the next step of the litigation and file a joint status report (with competing positions, if necessary) on 07/23/2018.

Status Report Joint by C.D.A. (07/23/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Plaintiff C.D.A. to Transfer Case (07/25/2018) (Access restricted)

Plaintiffs’ NOTICE of Motion by Amy Maldonado for Presentment of Motion to Transfer Case (07/25/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion by Plaintiff C.D.A. Dismissal of Defendant Heartland Human Care Services Inc. Only (Agreed) (07/25/2018) (Access Restricted)

Minute Entry (07/25/2018)

Status hearing held. Plaintiff's out-of-state attorneys appeared by telephone; local counsel and counsel for Defendants appeared in court. Plaintiff's agreed motion to dismiss Defendant Heartland Human Care Services, Inc. is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Heartland are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk's Office shall terminate Defendant Heartland as a named defendant. Defendants' response (in one filing for both 18 C 4265 and 18 C 4291) to Plaintiff's motion to transfer due 08/03/2018. Plaintiff's reply due 08/08/2018. Ultimately, the parties ought to consider that if there are non-moot claims (as there almost surely are), then a transfer to another District is not supposed to have a substantive effect, so Rule 12 motions (whether based on subject matter jurisdiction or the merits) should not enter into the transfer calculus. Status hearing set for 08/13/2018 at 8:30 a.m. The government acknowledged that the aspect of the preliminary injunction barring deportation of Plaintiff without his father remains in full force and effect.

Opposition to Motion to Transfer Case (08/03/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply by Plaintiff C.D.A. to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (08/08/2018) (Access restricted)

Supplement to motion to Transfer Case (08/09/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (08/09/2018)

Plaintiffs W.S.R. and C.D.A. filed a supplement on the docket in both cases, reporting that C.D.A. has been released from the Birks facility. The supplement also says in part, "Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Transfer" be withdrawn. The Court wishes to confirm that the supplement applies to W.S.R., that is, that W.S.R. is also requesting that his motion to transfer be withdrawn. W.S.R.'s counsel shall provide the answer by sending an email to the courtroom deputy, cc:'ing the defense counsel of record, as soon as practicable.

Minute Entry (08/09/2018)

Pursuant to the prior docket entry, Plaintiffs' counsel has reported that W.S.R. too withdraws the transfer motion. Each Plaintiff's transfer motion 47 is terminated as withdrawn. In light of the withdrawal of the motion, the Court directs the parties to confer on the next step of the litigation. Specifically, it might make sense for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that specifies the theories on which the requested declaratory judgment and fee-shifting is sought; the government would presumably move to dismiss it; and a briefing schedule would be set on the dismissal motion. That would put both sides on the same page before launching into briefing. Also, presumably Plaintiffs could file the amended complaint as a consolidated amended complaint for both Plaintiffs, and then 18-cv-4291 could be administratively terminated so that the parties (and the Court) need upload filings onto only one docket (all the past filings in 18-cv-4291 would be deemed operative in 18-cv-4265). The status hearing time of 8:30 a.m. is reset to 11:30 a.m., on the same date, 08/13/2018. Any counsel may appear via phone by notifying the courtroom deputy by 2 p.m. on the prior business day. If the parties need more time to confer, then they may contact the courtroom deputy to request a continuance of the status hearing.

Stipulation re: Briefing Schedule (08/10/2018) (Access restricted)

Minute Entry (08/10/2018)

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of both Plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment and attorneys' fees and costs under Case Number 18-cv-4265 by 08/27/2018. The government shall file its motion to dismiss by 09/17/2018. Plaintiffs shall respond by 10/01/2018. Those principal briefs may both use 25 pages. The government's reply is due by 10/09/2018 (10/08/2018 is a federal holiday), limited to 15 pages. The status hearing of 08/13/2018 is reset to 11/07/2018 at 8:30 a.m. After the filing of the consolidated Amended Complaint in 18-cv-4265, the Court will deem all prior filings in 18-cv-4291 as operative in 18-cv-4265, and will administratively close 18-cv-4291. All future filings shall be made only in 18-cv-4265.

Minute Entry (11/06/2018)

Pursuant to the filing of the consolidated Second Amended Complaint in 18-cv-4265, this Case No. 18-cv-4291 is administratively terminated. All filings are deemed operative in 18-cv-4265 and all future filings will be posted in 18-cv-4265.

​Padilla v. ICE (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 2:18-cv-00928)

Ramirez v. Sessions (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-01516-PLF)

Complaint Against All Defendants with Jury Demand (06/26/2018) (Access restricted)

Case Assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon (06/26/2018)

Case Reassigned (07/03/2018)

Case reassigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman as there is an earlier related case. Judge Richard J. Leon is no longer assigned to the case

Order (08/07/2018)

Joint Status Report (08/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Notice (08/31/2018) (Access restricted)

Notice (09/07/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (09/14/2018) (Access restricted)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion (09/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Response re Motion to Dismiss (10/05/2018) (Access restricted)

Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (10/19/2018) (Access restricted)

State of Washington et al v. United States of America et al

Gonzales-Garcia v. Sessions (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1:18-cv-11340-GAO)

Southwest Environmental Center v. Sessions et al (U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, 2:18-cv-00632)

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (07/04/2018)

Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar and Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth Assigned (07/05/2018)

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (07/05/2018)

Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Baake, David) (07/06/2018)

Case Reassigned (07/06/2018)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to Chief District Judge William P. Johnson as the trial judge.

Case Reassigned (07/17/2018)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea as the pretrial judge. Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth no longer assigned to this case.

Lopez Sales v. Sessions et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-01700-ABJ)

Complaint (07/20/2018) (Access restricted)

Order Granting Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document under Seal (07/31/2018)

Case Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson (07/31/2018)

Case Directly Reassigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman (08/02/2018)

Order (08/07/2018)

Motion to Dismiss (11/16/2018) (Access restricted)

Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum (11/27/2018) (Access restricted)

Stipulation of Dismissal (11/20/18)

M.M.M. v. Sessions

ESRB v. Sessions

Dora v. Sessions (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cv-01938-PLF)

Past litigation

R.I.L-R v. Johnson (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)

Documents Related to the Flores Settlement Agreement​

Flores v. Reno (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California)

Flores v. Lynch