Latest news with #AdministrationProcedureAct
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge grants Mines student injunction against DHS
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – A district judge granted a preliminary injunction for a graduate School of Mines student's immigration records and visa after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted to terminate her status before graduation. On May 13, the western district court of South Dakota held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion on May 15, according to court documents. COURT DOCS: 8 arrested in Madison ICE raid Court documents said Priya Saxena can stay in the U.S. under her current F-1 student visa, which is set to expire in 2027, and DHS cannot take immigration enforcement action to terminate her SEVIS records or revoke her student visa retroactive to April 4. Further, DHS cannot transfer Saxena out of the jurisdiction of the District of South Dakota. If DHS found a lawful reason to terminate Saxena's immigration records or visa, then DHS must provide notice to her and the court 15 days prior to termination. Originally from India, Saxena lawfully obtained a student visa in January 2020 to enroll at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, court documents said, and she graduated with a doctoral degree in Chemical and Biological Engineering on May 10, 2025. But the path to her degree wasn't easy after a possible deportation in April. On April 4, 2025, DHS terminated Saxena's SEVIS record and revoked her student visa, due to a 'criminal records check,' according to court documents. In 2021, Saxena faced a DUI charge, according to court documents, but a court dismissed the charge after Saxena plead guilty and paid a fine. Court documents said her visa was renewed in 2022 after a hearing. According to court documents, DHS failed to inform Saxena about the update to her immigration status, as her designated school official (DSO) informed her on April 7. On April 16, the School of Mines told Saxena that she couldn't graduate in May without lawful immigration status. More importantly, the record and visa termination threatened Saxena's ability to apply for optional practical training (OPT), a resource that would further her academic opportunities and future career, court documents said. The next day, Saxena filed a lawsuit against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Court documents said Saxena's lawsuit raised two claims: Unlawful termination of her SEVIS record, violating the Administration Procedure Act (APA); Violation of her rights to due process, violating the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Saxena moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction. Local News Rapid City teen assaults train operator On April 18, the court granted a TRO, requiring Noem and Lyons to reinstate Saxena's immigration records and status retroactive to April 4, and take no further action to terminate such. The TRO expires on May 16, according to court documents. Afterwards, Saxena's immigration records and visa were reinstated, and she was able to complete her program and graduate on May 10. On May 15, the court granted Saxena' preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a court order requiring the preservation of the status quo until the courts decides on the final merits of the case, court documents said. The court must consider the following factors to grant a preliminary injunction, as defined by court documents: The threat of irreparable harm on the plaintiff The state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting an injunction will inflict on defendants The probability that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits Public interest According to court documents, the court granted a preliminary injunction on the following merits: Threat of irreparable harm: the court agreed with Saxena's claims of harm, if her status were terminated again, on the basis of loss in academic progress, such as the previous threat to a timely graduation and potential inability to apply for OPT to further her career. Balance of hardships and public interest: The court found that the defendants showed no evidence that they'd receive harm if a preliminary injunction were to be placed, while Saxena proved there would be harm to her if it weren't in place. Further, the court found that the defendants' enforcement of immigration law was unlawful and likely to cause Saxena irreparable harm, which gives Saxena more favor of public interest. Likelihood of success on the merits: the court found four reasons for this merit: mootness, finality of agency actions, the court's jurisdiction, and the APA claim. First, although Saxena's SEVIS record was reinstated, her claims are not moot because the defendants failed to show that re-termination of her record is not reasonably expected to reoccur. Second, the court agreed that the termination of a F-1 student visa as a final agency action. Third, the court can rule on the matter of Saxena's immigration record and visa because she's not challenging a decision to go forward with removal proceedings. And finally, the court agreed that Saxena can succeed on her APA claim because she hasn't committed violations for lawful termination of her visa. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge orders federal agencies to release billions of dollars from two Biden-era initiatives
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars meant to finance climate and infrastructure projects across the country. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, sided with conservation and nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction until she rules on the merits of the lawsuit. The injunction is nationwide. McElroy concluded that the seven nonprofits demonstrated that the freeze was 'arbitrary and capricious' and that the powers asserted by the federal agencies, including the White House's Office of Management and Budget, in halting the payouts were not found in federal law. 'Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President's agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration,' she wrote. The nonprofits said that an executive order issued by Trump resulted in projects funded by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 2022 Inflation Reduction Act being put on hold. As a result, funding from many federal agencies has been frozen for everything from urban forestry projects to weatherization programs to lead pipe remediation and has resulted in 'serious and irreversible harm' to many groups. Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, welcomed the decision. 'This funding freeze has already caused serious harm in communities, as nonprofits that provide critical services to our country's most vulnerable have been forced to scale back operations, cancel projects, and consider laying off staff,' Yentel said. "This injunction offers much-needed relief and a path forward. Plaintiffs argued the freeze violated the Administration Procedure Act and contradicts a directive from the budget office that said the pause in funding in the executive order didn't apply to all the funding. They also said there is no statutory provision that allows the federal agencies to freeze the funding. The federal government responded that Congress gave agencies broad latitude to select recipients for the funding and that the plaintiffs failed to show that three of the seven agencies they sued have caused them any harm. They also argued that plaintiffs can't seek relief through this lawsuit since they are already pursuing a similar challenge in a different court. ___
Associated Press
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge orders federal agencies to release billions of dollars from two Biden-era initiatives
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars meant to finance climate and infrastructure projects across the country. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, sided with conservation and nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction until she rules on the merits of the lawsuit. The injunction is nationwide. McElroy concluded that the seven nonprofits demonstrated that the freeze was 'arbitrary and capricious' and that the powers asserted by the federal agencies, including the White House's Office of Management and Budget, in halting the payouts were not found in federal law. 'Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President's agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration,' she wrote. The nonprofits said that an executive order issued by Trump resulted in projects funded by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 2022 Inflation Reduction Act being put on hold. As a result, funding from many federal agencies has been frozen for everything from urban forestry projects to weatherization programs to lead pipe remediation and has resulted in 'serious and irreversible harm' to many groups. Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, welcomed the decision. 'This funding freeze has already caused serious harm in communities, as nonprofits that provide critical services to our country's most vulnerable have been forced to scale back operations, cancel projects, and consider laying off staff,' Yentel said. 'This injunction offers much-needed relief and a path forward. Plaintiffs argued the freeze violated the Administration Procedure Act and contradicts a directive from the budget office that said the pause in funding in the executive order didn't apply to all the funding. They also said there is no statutory provision that allows the federal agencies to freeze the funding. The federal government responded that Congress gave agencies broad latitude to select recipients for the funding and that the plaintiffs failed to show that three of the seven agencies they sued have caused them any harm. They also argued that plaintiffs can't seek relief through this lawsuit since they are already pursuing a similar challenge in a different court. ___
