Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, IMMIGRATION—D.D.C.: Advocacy groups fail to block immigrant registry order, (Apr 14, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Their claimed harms were too speculative and they failed to show that the rule would erode their core missions, and as such they lacked standing to challenge the order.

Denying a motion to stay or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction against an interim final rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security, a federal district court in the District of Columbia found that immigrant advocacy organizations who sought relief lacked standing to challenge the rule. The purported injuries claimed by the organizations were highly speculative and even if the organizations have to expend greater resources to carry out their mission in response to the rule, that is not synonymous with the rule having perceptibly harmed their mission. Further, they had failed to identify a close historical or common-law analogue for their asserted injury to demonstrate that their asserted injury was concrete (Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-00943 (TNM) (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2025)).

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security published an interim final rule creating a new online general registration form for undocumented immigrants. The organizations that brought this action argued that this broadens the requirement of registration to immigrants who do not have immigration forms obtained through preexisting immigration programs. The rule was set to take effect on April 11.

Stay sought. Before the rule could take effect, a handful of nonprofit organizations serving immigrant communities, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles (CHIRLA) and the United Farmworkers of America, filed this suit seeking a stay of the date of the effective rule or a preliminary injunction. These organizations are member-based and are made up of many undocumented immigrants and citizens belonging to mixed-status families.

According to the organizations, the rule was issued in violation of the APA because it is a legislative rule that was published without notice or an opportunity for public comment. The government opposed relief, arguing the organizations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because they lacked standing.

Organizational standing. Out of the plaintiffs, CHIRLA was the only group to claim that it had organizational standing. However, the court found that CHIRLA's claims that it expects an influx of inquiries in response to the rule, and that in addressing the volume of community needs it will experience a strain on its staff and budget, to be too speculative.

"CHIRLA's feared harms have yet to come to fruition, and they very well may never manifest," said the court. Further, the putative harms are reliant the choices of an unspecified volume of intervening third parties, observed the court, and CHIRLA might never be so taxed by a swell of inquiries that they lose funding. Without facts, the court was left with "uncorroborated fear," and Article III standing requires more than that.

Mission unimpaired. Moreover, CHIRLA could not demonstrate that the rule had perceptibly impaired its mission. There was nothing to suggest that the government was blocking CHIRLA from carrying out its mission, and the fact that CHIRLA might have to increase its resources is insufficient on its own to support standing, explained the court. "Arguably, these enhanced advocacy efforts are a fulfillment of an organization's mission," said the court.

Associational standing. Next, the court considered whether the organizations had established associational standing. The court determined that any claim for associational standing failed for two independent reasons.

Hearsay-within-hearsay. First, the only allegations of concrete harm to individual members that the organizations presented were in the form of pseudonymous hearsay, observed the court. That is, the organizations described harms their members had suffered while using false names for those members. Further, these pseudonymous reports were contained in affidavits submitted by the organizations, which are themselves hearsay evidence. This meant that all the court had to go on was hearsay-within-hearsay.

"Layered hearsay innately lacks credibility, as it only exacerbates the preexisting veracity issues inherent to typical hearsay," said the court. Most importantly, continued the court, this nameless double hearsay was going towards the court's jurisdiction, and asserting the authority of Article III based only on nameless double hearsay would amount to an exercise in judicial arrogation.

Traditionally recognized harm. Even if the court were to credit the double hearsay, it nonetheless determined that the organizations had failed to articulate a viable theory of associational standing. Their primary conception of their members' injury is that the members are "directly regulated parties." In other words, they have suffered an injury-in-fact by having "to submit Form G325R, provide biometrics, and carry proof of this registration as proscribed by the IFR at all times or face arrest and federal prosecution."

On this point, the court found that the organizations had failed to show that the mere requirement to abide by the law—even if it is true that the accompanying regulation flouted procedural requirements when enacted—constitutes a concrete injury for standing purposes. Without showing a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit, the organizations had failed to show associational standing.

If there are costly compliance measures to complying with the rule, the organizations had failed to point to any amount, observed the court. Further, they had failed to show that the rule will penalize constitutionally protected conduct. Although the organizations argued that the rule will force their members to reveal their undocumented status and thus would violate the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination, the court found that this argument failed both factually and legally.

Criminal prosecution? Factually, the court explained that this argument fell flat because the organizations had failed to demonstrate that any of their members would actually be subject to criminal prosecution based on their answers to the questions presented by the form. A charge for entry without inspection usually carries a statute of limitations of five years, which begins running as soon as an undocumented person enters the U.S. Nearly all of the organizations' members have been residing in the U.S. for more than five years and do not have other crimes to report on the form. Thus, for nearly all of the organizations' members, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not implicated.

One possible exception was a CHIRLA member who entered the U.S. without inspection in 2023 as an unaccompanied minor. However, the court questioned whether the government even prosecutes juveniles for misdemeanor illegal entry.

Even if this member could be prosecuted, any Fifth Amendment claim would still fail as a matter of law, said the court. The organizations did not allege that any of their members had actually invoked their Fifth Amendment right, only to be rebuffed. Nor did they allege that an invocation of their Fifth Amendment right as it related to the required form would lead to sanctions.

"At this point, then, any claims that the members risk a violation of their right against self-incrimination are speculative and premature," said the court. Because the organizations had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of standing, their motion for a stay and preliminary injunction was denied.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00943 (TNM).

Judge: McFadden, T.

Attorneys: Cassandra Charles (National Immigration Law Center) for Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Kartik Narayan Venguswamy, U.S. Department of Justice, for U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Companies: Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

MainStory: TopStory Immigration IndividualRights Procedure RemediesDamages DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews