By Dave Simpson

Law360 (December 11, 2020, 8:30 PM EST) -- A California federal judge on Friday blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump's COVID-19-related rule barring noncitizens from moving to the U.S. on new green cards, specifically as the rule pertains to 181 families, finding that the families showed they'd suffer irreparable harm.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted a preliminary injunction requested by the families and denied the government's motion to send the suit to D.C. federal court. In addition to showing harm, the challenging families raised "serious questions" about the merits of the rule and its enforcement. The suit did not seek a nationwide injunction and so the order applies only to the 181 families.

"Family separations and the resulting emotional harm can constitute irreparable hardship for purposes of a preliminary injunction," Judge Chen said.

The green card ban came down in April, and a June order extended the green card restrictions through the end of the year and instituted a temporary ban on certain work visa holders.

In October, individuals attempting to bring their spouses, children and family members into the U.S. filed suit in the California court, alleging that their reunification efforts ground to a halt when Trump issued his green card ban.

They argue that Trump lacked the authority to restrict immigration in such a way, claiming the president used the ongoing health emergency to attack family-based immigration and noted his several tweets and live appearances disparaging the program.

They additionally lobbed claims at the U.S. Department of State. Though their petitions to bring their family members into the U.S. have been approved, the individuals claim that the government illegally stopped processing their visa applications.

Judge Chen considered a wide variety of emotional hardships that plaintiffs say they face as a result of the green card ban. For example, when minors "age out" of their immigrant visa petitions — as some are slated to have happen in the coming months — they forever lose the ability to immigrate to the U.S. on these approved petitions.

"This is a unique emotional hardship for some plaintiffs — they must cope with the prospect that all the effort they invested in reuniting their families may be for naught," he said. "Several of the plaintiffs seek immigrant visa petitions for their family members in Yemen, who are struggling to survive amidst the humanitarian crisis."

The judge further found that the plaintiffs raise "serious questions" as to the merits of the rules' constitutionality given the existence of the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the Department of State's implementation of the rules violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

"They contend that DOS's implementation exceeds the scope of the proclamation, which addresses only entry of immigrants but does not enjoin the processing and issuance of visas," Judge Chen said. "Absent the proclamations, there is no legal basis to categorically lock down the processing of visas where there is an approved immigrant visa petition."

"In today's order, Judge Chen has firmly rejected the president's attacks on immigrant families," plaintiffs' attorney Rafael Ureña said in a release. "All over the country immigrants and their families are relieved by the fact that this administration is on the way out."

Representatives for the government did not immediately respond to request for comment Friday.

The immigrants are represented by Curtis Lee Morrison, Kristina Ghazaryan and Abadir Barre of the Law Office of Rafael Ureña.

The federal government is represented by Kimberly A. Robinson of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

The case is Young et al. v. Trump et al., case number 4:20-cv-07183, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Alyssa Aquino. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.