The arguments presented during the second round of litigation were "nearly identical" to those made during the first. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (EBSC III ), 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Relying heavily on the motions panel's published order, the district court again issued an injunction barring enforcement of the Rule. See id. at 1121.
The arguments presented during the second round of litigation were "nearly identical" to those made during the first. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (EBSC III ), 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Relying heavily on the motions panel’s published order, the district court again issued an injunction barring enforcement of the Rule. See id. at 1121.
The Court therefore reviews the relevant law more briefly, focusing on the provisions most relevant here. Because of the overlap between the claims and arguments presented, the Court refers extensively to three decisions from that case: E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (E. Bay I) , 349 F. Supp. 3d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (order granting temporary restraining order ("TRO")); E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (E. Bay II) , 909 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2018) (order denying stay of TRO); E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (E. Bay III) , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (order granting preliminary injunction). The current iteration of U.S. asylum law stems from the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980), which Congress enacted in large part "to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577 [ (‘1967 Protocol’) ], to which the United States acceded in 1968."
The East Bay Sanctuary Covenant litigation challenging the Rule is separate from other similarly named litigation challenging a different asylum-related rulemaking. SeeEast Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (challenging a regulation issued by the Departments that, together with a presidential proclamation, effectively barred asylum for any alien who did not enter the United States at a designated port of entry). II. Legal Standard
Although the Asylum Ban's limitation on eligibility requirements may derivatively affect certain aspects of the expedited removal process authorized in § 1225(b)(1), the Asylum Ban does not implement § 1225(b)(1). SeeE. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1118–19 (N.D. Cal. 2018), appeal filed , Nos. 18-17274, 18-17436 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2018). Rather, the Asylum Ban implements the asylum eligibility requirements stated in the asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr ("East Bay IV") , 385 F. Supp. 3d 922, 960 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Among other things, the Court found that "the Organizations [had] ... established a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm through ‘diversion of resources and the non-speculative loss of substantial funding from other sources.’ " Id. at 957-58 (quoting E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump ("East Bay III "), 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). Defendants in this action are Attorney General William Barr; the Department of Justice ("DOJ"); the Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR"); James McHenry, the Director of EOIR; the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); Kevin K. McAleenan, the Acting Secretary of DHS; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, the Acting Director of USCIS; Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"); John P. Sanders, the Acting Commissioner of CBP; Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); and Matthew T. Albence, the Acting Director of ICE.
Also pending before the Court are the O.A. and S.M.S.R. Plaintiffs' earlier-filed motions for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief, Dkt. 6; Mot. for Temp. Restraining Order, Dkt. 6, S.M.S.R. et al. v. Trump et al. (No. 18-2838), which the Court held in abeyance after the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction eliminating any risk of imminent injury to any of the plaintiffs in these actions. See Minute Entry (Dec. 21, 2018); see alsoE. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
Bringing its infrastructure into compliance with the separation requirement will also require Essential Access to divert resources it "otherwise devotes to its core operations and its mission." Essential Mot. at 32 (citing Rabinovitz Decl. ¶ 67); seeE. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (holding that organizational plaintiffs " ‘have established a likelihood of irreparable harm’ based on their showing of serious ‘ongoing harms to their organizational missions,’ including diversion of resources") (quoting Valle del Sol , 732 F.3d at 1029 ). As with the economic harm to California, Essential Access's economic harm is irreparable because it "will not be able to recover monetary damages" for its APA claims.
Plaintiffs here, a state and a municipality, " ‘operate in a fashion that permits neat geographic boundaries.’ " E. Bay Port-of-Entry , 950 F.3d at 1282–83 (quoting E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (E. Bay III) , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1120–21 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ). Because Plaintiffs do not operate or suffer harm outside of their own borders, the geographical scope of an injunction can be neatly drawn to provide no more or less relief than what is necessary to redress Plaintiffs’ injuries.
This Court enjoined the Entry Rule. EBSC v. Trump (Entry I), 349 F. Supp. 3d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (granting temporary restraining order); EBSC v. Trump (Entry II), 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (granting preliminary injunction). The Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court declined to stay the temporary restraining order pending appeal.