Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• August 2, 2019

  J.O.P. v. DHS Memorandum Opinion

  A district court judge in J.O.P. v. DHS, (8:19-cv-1944 (D. Md. Aug. 2, 2019)) issued temporary restraining order enjoining implementation of the policy. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over the application of any UAC… whose application would have been accepted under” the Kim Memo. USCIS must retract decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision already rendered” under the new policy “and reinstate consideration of such case applying the [Kim Memo].” Litigation continues with Judge George Hazel on June 3, 2020 denying the government's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment.

  On Dec. 21, 2020, the court issued an order certifying a class and amending the injunction. The policy remains enjoined.

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document
• August 22, 2024

  2024.08.22 Settlement Agreement

  On August 22, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland preliminarily approved a settlement agreement reached between the parties in J.O.P. v. DHS. As stated in the proposed settlement agreement, USCIS will fully rescind their 2019 memo. Additionally, "[d]efendants shall retract all other Adverse Jurisdictional Determinations rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that are inconsistent with [the settlement agreement] no later than 180 days after USCIS’s issuance of the superseding memorandum . . ." The superseding memorandum that DHS will issue pursuant to this agreement will be kept in effect for at least three years.

  *see litigation note above*

  View Document
• January 30, 2025

  2025.1.30 USCIS Asylum Division Chief Lafferty, Memorandum HQRAIO/12a, "Updated Procedures for Determination of Initial Jurisdiction over Asylum Applications Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children and Implementation of the J.O.P. Settlement Agreement"

  On January 30, 2025, USCIS Asylum Division Chief John Lafferty issued Memorandum HQRAIO 120/12a to all Asylum Office staff, outlining updated procedures for the determination of initial jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by unaccompanied minors, as required by the settlement agreement in J.O.P. v. DHS, 8:19-cv-01944 (D. Md.). The new procedures take effect on February 24, 2025, superseding in part a 2009 USCIS memorandum and the 2013 Kim Memo, and will remain in effect until at least February 24, 2028.

  Under the new procedures, asylum officers adopt prior UC determinations made by ICE or CBP without further factual inquiry, so long as those determinations were in effect when asylum application was filed with USCIS or EOIR. An asylum officer may reject jurisdiction if a person in removal proceedings previously determined to be a UC was subsequently placed in adult ICE detention before filing for asylum. In this circumstance, an applicant must be given the opportunity to rebut the determination. Where EOIR makes a determination about whether an applicant is a UC, USCIS may not defer to that determination if EOIR concludes the applicant was not a UC, but may defer if EOIR determines the applicant was a UC (and that USCIS would therefore have jurisdictions). Where no UC determination has been made, asylum officers make a new factual determination regarding whether the individual was a UC at the time of filing.

  *see litigation note above*

  View Document
• April 23, 2025

  2025.04.23. J.O.P. Emergency Motion

  The federal judge overseeing the enforcement of the J.O.P. settlement agreement granted an emergency motion to enforce the agreement. The order prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from removing any J.O.P. class member from the United States unless they have received an adjudication on the merits of their asylum claim by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The order also requires the government to facilitate the return of “Cristian," a class member who was removed in violation of the J.O.P. Settlement Agreement. J.O.P., et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 8:19-CV-01944-SAG (D. Md. 2025).

  *see litigation note above*

  View Document
• April 23, 2025

  2025.04.23 J.O.P. Memorandum Opinion

  The District Court issued a memorandum opinion accompanying the emergency motion above. The memo rejects the government's assertion that individuals designated as alien enemies pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) are no longer members of the class as defined in Section II.E. ECF 248 of the J.O.P Settlement Agreement. The memo further asserts that the emergency motion does not challenge the scope of Defendants’ removal authority under the AEA, because Plaintiffs simply seek to enforce the existing Settlement Agreement, "which the Court clearly has jurisdiction to do." The Court "will thus apply standard contract principles to assess the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement." J.O.P., et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 8:19-CV-01944-SAG (D. Md. 2025).

  *see litigation note above*

  View Document