News & Insights

Facts of the Case

• Background: The plaintiffs, a group of Hispanic individuals and two migrant worker advocacy organizations, alleged that the U.S. Border Patrol’s Sandusky Bay Station in Ohio engaged in racial profiling and other unconstitutional practices.
• Allegations: Border Patrol agents were accused of disproportionately targeting individuals based on Hispanic appearance and ethnicity, using racial slurs, and employing discriminatory enforcement practices.
• Legal Action: Plaintiffs sought prospective injunctive relief to halt these practices, asserting violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
• District Court Ruling: The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that plaintiffs had not shown a waiver of sovereign immunity under the APA. The court required compliance with § 704’s “agency action” or “final agency action” requirements.

Court’s Analysis

• The Sixth Circuit analyzed the interplay between § 702 and § 704 of the APA.
• The court emphasized that § 702 provides a broad waiver of sovereign immunity for suits seeking non-monetary relief against federal agencies or officials acting in their official capacities.
• It clarified that this waiver applies regardless of whether the claims fall within the “agency action” or “final agency action” framework under § 704.
• The court joined other circuits in holding that § 702’s sovereign immunity waiver is not limited to claims explicitly seeking review of “final agency action.” Instead, it extends to all claims for equitable relief where plaintiffs allege unlawful actions by federal agencies or officials, provided the relief sought is non-monetary.