Rule of Law

ASISTA Immigration Assistance v. Albence

Challenging a Trump Administration change in immigration policy that harms crime victims and law enforcement efforts, because the official who issued the new policy is serving unlawfully as the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the policy is therefore illegal.

Case Summary

Congress created the U‑nonimmigrant visa, or “U visa” to allow immigrant survivors of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault to remain in the United States if they help law enforcement investigate or prosecute those crimes. To prevent people from being deported before their U-visa applications are processed, Congress authorized the government to stay the deportation of individuals who have pending U-visa applications—a policy followed for years by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, in August 2019, the purported “Acting Director” of ICE, Matthew Albence, issued a directive that made significant changes to ICE’s policy regarding U-Visa applicants. While individuals applicants were previously granted a stay of deportation if they had filed a proper U-visa application and no “adverse conditions” existed, under the new directive, people who meet these standards are no longer protected from deportation, making them much more likely to be deported as they await a decision on their U-visa applications. As a result of this policy change, crime victims who have applied for U visas with the support of law enforcement are at greater risk of being deported before their applications are processed, even though they may ultimately be found entitled to receive a U visa and remain in the United States.

Along with co-counsel Protect Democracy, CAC sued Albence and other federal officials on behalf of two plaintiffs: ASISTA Immigration Assistance, a nonprofit organization that, among other things, trains and provides technical assistance to attorneys representing survivors of violence in immigration proceedings; and Sanctuary for Families, Inc., a nonprofit organization that, among other things, represents gender violence survivors in deportation proceedings and assists them in obtaining lawful immigration status. Our lawsuit alleges that Albence was illegally performing the role of “Acting Director” of ICE when he issued the new policy and therefore had no authority to issue the policy.

As our complaint explains, our nation’s Founders adopted the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to prevent abuses of executive power. The Clause requires that high-level federal officers be confirmed by the Senate after presidential nomination, and that all other officers be appointed in the same manner unless federal law provides otherwise. Here, federal law unequivocally requires that the ICE Director be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

While the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) permits acting officials to temporarily carry out the duties of certain offices, it imposes rigid constraints on the length of time during which a vacant office may be filled by acting officials. Based on the FVRA’s time limits, the office of ICE Director could not be filled by an acting official after August 1, 2019. Nonetheless, Albence continued purporting to be the Acting Director of ICE after that date, and he continued taking official actions under the authority of that office—including issuing ICE’s new policy on the deportation of U-visa applicants.

Because Albence issued the new policy without any legal authority to do so, his actions violated the Appointments Clause, the FVRA, and other federal statutes. Our lawsuit seeks a ruling that the new policy is therefore invalid.

In May 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and briefing on those motions was completed. On October 5, 2020, the District Court for the District of Connecticut heard oral argument, and on October 19, 2020 supplemental briefing from both parties was completed.

Case Timeline

  • February 13, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file complaint

    D. Conn. Complaint
  • April 10, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file amended complaint

    D. Conn. Am. Complaint
  • May 26, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement

    D. Conn. SJ Memo
  • July 17, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file reply memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

    D. Conn. Reply Memo
  • October 5, 2020

    The District Court for the District of Connecticut hears oral argument

  • October 12, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file supplemental brief

    D. Conn. Supp. Br.
  • October 19, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file supplemental reply brief

    D. Conn. Supp. Reply Br.
  • July 8, 2021

    CAC and Protect Democracy file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to renew the stay

    Stay Opp.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
July 28, 2021

Originalism Watch, Sixth Circuit Edition Part II: Judge Thapar Calls for the Supreme Court to “Breath[e] New Life” Into the Nondelegation Doctrine

Back in April, my colleague, David Gans, observed that Sixth Circuit Judge John Bush’s concurrence...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 27, 2021

RELEASE: CAC President Commends 1/6 Committee for Beginning Important Work, Urges Accountability

WASHINGTON – As the bipartisan Jan. 6 Select Committee holds its first hearing, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement and is available...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
July 22, 2021

OP-ED: The One Area Where Supreme Court Jurisprudence Is Actually Improving Thanks to Originalism

For decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly deferred to the police when judging the validity...
By: David H. Gans
Rule of Law
July 27, 2021

#PurpleChairChat: Supporting the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

CAC’s interns, Dylan Hosmer-Quint of Harvard Law, and Gilbert Orbea and Saja Spearman-Weaver of Yale Law, discuss the great work they have...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
July 16, 2021

Rent regulations are not unconstitutional

New York Daily News
Some New York City landlords are pushing for an expansive misreading of the Constitution to serve their...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Christopher Serkin
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Blassingame v. Trump

In Blassingame v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at...