13.  Since the beginning of his presidency, President Trump has pursued a cruel anti- immigrant agenda that has sought to vilify and scapegoat immigrants. President Trump has  repeatedly made derogatory comments about immigrants, calling undocumented immigrants  “animals,” saying, “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these  are animals . . . .”1 He further referred to undocumented immigrants as an “infestation” and  compared immigrants and refugees to a “snake” that will “bite[]” those who help it.2    15.  In January 2018, President Trump claimed so-called “sanctuary cities” were “the  best friends of gangs and cartels.” In March 2018, the Trump Administration sued the State of  California to enjoin three state laws that protect immigrants and limit the information that state  officials may share with federal immigration enforcement authorities. In April 2018, Trump  made derogatory comments about sanctuary cities in California, saying “many Sanctuary areas  want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept.”3   16.  Similarly, on April 12, 2019, President Trump confirmed reports that his  administration was planning to send undocumented immigrants to “Sanctuary Cities,” tweeting:  “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws,  we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in  Sanctuary Cities only.”4   17.  Defendant Wolf has echoed the President’s views. In December 2019 he stated,  “[S]anctuary policies do not protect communities, they endanger them,” and referred to such  policies as “devastating.”  On January 15, 2020, he tweeted, “There has been a complete  breakdown of law & order in New York City. NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws &  bragged about it for months. But now they, & more importantly, the citizens of NYC are facing  the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies.”5   19.  In stark contrast to the Trump Administration, New York officials have sought to  protect immigrant communities from hyper-aggressive and unwarranted enforcement measures,  both as a matter of respect and to promote public safety.   20.  In June 2019, New York State enacted the Driver’s License Privacy and  Protection Act, commonly referred to as the “Green Light Law.” That law, which went into  effect on December 14, 2019, authorizes the issuance of standard driver’s licenses regardless of  citizenship status.   21.  Concerned about the Trump Administration’s attacks on immigrants and its  pattern of seeking to coerce states into engaging in federal immigration enforcement, New York  State chose to include in its Green Light Law restrictions on access to databases that are  maintained by its Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and that contain certain information  about those applying for driver’s licenses. Specifically, absent a judicial warrant, the Green Light  Law bars access to DMV-maintained records by “any agency that primarily enforces  immigration law,” including CBP and ICE.    The Global Entry Program   22.  The federal government operates several programs designed to expedite border  crossings for vetted and approved travelers. Referred to generally as “Trusted Traveler  Programs,” the best known of these programs is Global Entry.   24.  The federal government has approved millions of people to participate in Global  Entry, including qualifying U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and citizens of 11 other  countries with whom CBP has made certain arrangements.6 Membership in Global Entry  includes the TSA PreCheck benefit, which expedites traveler screening through domestic airport  security checkpoints.   25.  DHS established Global Entry and the other Trusted Traveler Programs pursuant  to a statute directing the Secretary of DHS to “establish an international registered traveler  program” in order to “expedite the screening and processing of international travelers, including  United States Citizens and residents, who enter and exit the United States.”   26.  In requiring DHS to create the program, Congress found that expediting “the  travel of previously screened and known travelers across the borders of the United States should  be a high priority” and that the “process of expediting known travelers across the borders of the  United States can permit inspectors to better focus on identifying terrorists attempting to enter  the United States.”   28.  In June 2008, CBP began operating a pilot Global Entry program, which was  successful. According to the agency’s analysis of the pilot program, “The increased volume of  traffic to the kiosks by proven low-risk travelers allows CBP officers more time and resources to  address higher risk security concerns” and thereby improve overall security.    29.  CBP issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Global Entry as  permanent program on November 19, 2009 and published a final rule on February 6, 2012.  Global Entry has since been available across the country.    30.  Consistent with the congressional mandate to maximize participation in the  program, the eligibility criteria for applying for the program are broad. Specifically, the program  is open to any U.S. citizen, U.S. national, U.S. lawful permanent resident, and “‘nonimmigrant  aliens’ from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP concerning international  trusted traveler programs.” Additionally, any applicant under the age of 18 must have the consent  of a parent or legal guardian. All applicants must have a valid “machine-readable passport, a  valid machine readable U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident Card (Form I-155), or other appropriate  travel document as determined by CBP.”   31.  Global Entry’s criteria do not require applicants to have a driver’s license, a  driving record, or even residence in the United States.    32.  Under these criteria, upon information and belief, millions of New York residents  are eligible to apply for Global Entry.   34.  A non-refundable fee of $100 is required with each completed application to  submit the application.   35.  Once they have submitted their applications, applicants undergo a multi-prong  screening process.  As part of that process, CBP routes the applications to a vetting center where  their biographic information contained in the applications is queried against 21 different data  systems, including:  a. UPAX, a consolidated database that includes information to help identify  “potential terrorists, transnational criminals, and other persons who pose a higher  risk of violating U.S. law”;  b. TECS, data repository that supports “law enforcement ‘lookouts,’ border  screening, and reporting for CBP’s primary and secondary inspection processes”;  c. IDENT, which stores and processes biometric data “to establish and verify  identities,” including biometric information from INTERPOL;  d. The FBI’s National Crime Information Center’s Interstate Identification Index, an  automated database that integrates criminal history records from federal, state,  local, tribal, and certain foreign criminal justice agencies; and  e. TSDB, a consolidated database maintained by FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center  that “provides information about those known or reasonably suspected of being  involved in terrorist activity.”    37.  After the vetting process, if CBP conditionally approves the application, the  applicant is notified to schedule an interview at an approved Global Entry Enrollment Center or  certain international airports upon arrival in the United States.   38.  On the date of the scheduled interview, the applicant is required to bring their  application documents and one other form of identification, like a government-issued  identification card. At the interview, CBP conducts a personal interview, obtains biometric  information (including a set of fingerprints and a digital photograph), and addresses any  additional eligibility questions.    39.  Once an application is approved, the new member receives a Global Entry card.  Membership in the Global Entry program lasts for a period of 5 years so long as the application  is not suspended or terminated by CBP.   40.  Global Entry program members may renew their enrollment beginning one year  prior to the expiration of the five-year membership. If the member submits a renewal application  before their prior Global Entry membership expires, that applicant is allowed to use their Global  Entry card for up to six months after the membership application date regardless of whether the  card expires, in case the renewal does not get processed prior to expiration.    42.  The background-check requirements that CBP imposes on Global Entry  applicants who are foreign nationals living outside the U.S. vary by country. For example,  applicants who are resident in Taiwan must “obtain a Police Criminal Record Certificate from  their local Taiwan Police Department,” but there is no such requirement on applicants living in  Panama.    43.  Upon information and belief, CBP has approved Global Entry applications from  non-residents — including both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens — residing in jurisdictions that do  not share with the defendants the particular information that they now purport CBP requires to  determine the Global Entry eligibility of New York residents.   DHS Bans All New York Residents from Global Entry and Other TTPs.   44.  In his State of the Union address on February 4, 2020, President Trump singled  out New York for criticism because of efforts in the state to protect immigrants. The following  day defendant Wolf announced on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight that he had sent a letter  to New York officials immediately suspending enrollment and re-enrollment in Global Entry and  other Trusted Traveler Programs (“TTPs”) for all New York State residents.   46.  In announcing the New York Ban, defendant Wolf claimed banning New York’s  nearly 20 million residents from applying for Global Entry was necessitated by the provision of  the New York’s Green Light Law that bars immigration officials from accessing the state’s  DMV records. In support of this sweeping action, however, the letter offers only one rationale:  “The [Green Light Law] prevents DHS from accessing relevant information that only New York  DMV maintains, including some aspects of an individual’s criminal history.” The letter does not  identify the specific information it refers to and offers little explanation as to how losing access  to that information affects the Global Entry vetting process.    47.  Notably, this rationale does not apply to over 3.5 million New York residents for  whom DMV maintains no records but who may otherwise be eligible to apply for Global Entry.   48.   Most of defendant Wolf’s letter makes clear that DHS’s termination of Global  Entry for New York residents is simply an attempt to force New York officials to cooperate in  federal immigration enforcement by making DMV records available to ICE. While spending  precious little time explaining any actual impact on Global Entry, defendant Wolf’s letter  devotes substantial space to claiming that losing access to DMV records has impaired  law-enforcement activities by ICE.    49.  On February 6, 2020, CBP issued a press release entitled “New York Residents  No Longer Eligible to Apply for or Renew Trusted Traveler Programs.”  The release states:  Effective immediately, . . . . New York residents will no longer be eligible to apply  for or renew membership in CBP Trusted Traveler Programs and CBP will cancel  all pending Trusted Traveler Program applications submitted by residents of New  York. Refunds will be processed automatically.   51.  New York State residents who attempt to enroll in the Global Entry program  online now receive an error message and cannot complete their applications:  53.  Upon information and belief, the New York Ban affects approximately 255,000  New York State residents.  Over 80,000 residents — like named plaintiffs Lewis-McCoy and  Dakwar — had pending applications for enrollment or reenrollment in Global Entry and other  TTPs when the New York Ban went into effect. And by the end of 2020, approximately 175,000  New Yorkers who have been vetted and approved will be removed from TTPs, including Global  Entry, because they now are barred from re-enrolling. Beyond those whose current enrollment or  pending applications are immediately affected, the New York Ban bars millions of other New  York residents — like named plaintiff Giammatteo — who might want to apply for the first time  from doing so.   54.  Upon information and belief, the curtailing of CBP access to New York’s DMV  records has little if any effect on the agency’s ability to assess applicants for Global Entry.   55.  As an initial matter, DMV possesses no records regarding millions of New York  residents eligible to apply for Global Entry. Many New York residents do not drive and have  never applied for a driver’s license.   56.  As for those New York residents about whom DMV may possess records, upon  information and belief many if not most of those records will contain no information that CBP  itself would consider relevant to approval for Global Entry that it does not otherwise access  through its other vetting processes.   58.  Finally, before the passage of the Green Light Law, CBP may not have  consistently accessed DMV records as part of its Global Entry vetting process. The plaintiffs are  unaware of any reports or evidence establishing that CBP was using DMV records in this way.   59.  Not only does the New York Ban bar millions of New York residents about whom  DMV records contain little or no relevant information, it leaves the program open to persons  about whom those records may contain considerable relevant information. Specifically, any  person who moves out of New York — for instance to adjoining New Jersey, Connecticut, or  Pennsylvania — becomes eligible to apply for Global Entry. A fact sheet provided to an  applicant turned away from his interview at JFK International Airport on February 9 states, “If  there has been a change in residence (outside i.e., [sic] if an applicant moves from the State of  New York to a different state) applicants may reapply with their new information.”   60.  Under the New York Ban, a U.S. citizen currently residing in New York could  become eligible to apply by moving abroad and establishing residence in any foreign in country  in the world, regardless of CBP’s ability to obtain intelligence regarding persons residing in the  country. Similarly, under the ban, citizens of Argentina or Germany or India are eligible to apply  for Global Entry if they reside in their home country, but would lose that eligibility if they moved  to New York.    61.  Neither DHS nor CBP has ever before singled out residents of just one state to  ban them from Global Entry or any other Trusted Traveler Program.   63.  As of the time of filing of this complaint, DHS has adopted a new force-of-law  eligibility requirement — non-residence in New York — that governs the Global Entry program,   without having followed the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.  Indeed, New  York officials were surprised by the sudden announcement and did not have the opportunity to  engage with DHS over its alleged concerns.   64.  Addressing the New York Ban, Ken Cuccinelli, the Senior Official Performing  the Duties of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, warned other states about passing laws  similar to New York: “I know that the state of Washington is looking at a law like New York’s  ‘Green Light Law.’” He further threatened, “They should know that their citizens are going to  lose the convenience of entering these Trusted Traveler Programs, just as New York’s did.”   65.  Mr. Cuccinelli has also threatened New Yorkers’ future participation in the  Transportation Security Administration PreCheck program, saying “PreCheck is not currently on  the list (of affected programs), but that is all I'll say about that. It doesn't mean it can’t be in the  future.”  The Named Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Enroll in Global Entry  R. L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy   66.  Plaintiff R. L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy is a U.S. citizen who resides in New York,  New York. He is an Associate Professor of Sociology of Education at the New York University  Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development.   68.  Mr. Lewis-McCoy has a valid, machine-readable U.S. passport and is eligible to  apply for Global Entry.   69.  Mr. Lewis-McCoy submitted a complete application for Global Entry online on  October 21, 2019, and paid the required $100 application fee. His application was vetted and,  upon information and belief, during the vetting process (and before the implementation of the  Green Light Law), CBP had access the New York DMV information it claims it needs.  Mr.  Lewis-McCoy received his “conditional approval” to schedule an interview.   70.  On November 5, 2019, Mr. Lewis-McCoy completed his in-person interview for  his application for Global Entry at an approved enrollment center located on NYU’s campus.  During the interview, Mr. Lewis-McCoy answered the agent’s routine questions like his name,  date of birth, and the countries where he had travelled recently.  The agent scanned a copy of his  passport and his New York state driver’s license. She also took his picture and scanned his hand.  Before the interview ended, the agent gave Mr. Lewis-McCoy her contact information and said  that if he wanted to enroll his family in the program, as well, he could contact her and she would  help enroll them.   72.  Plaintiff Jamil Dakwar is a U.S. citizen who resides in New York, New York. He  is the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program, and an adjunct  professor at Hunter College, Bard College, and John Jay College of Criminal Justice.    73.  Mr. Dakwar is a frequent international traveler and wishes to enroll in the Global  Entry to enjoy the convenience of expedited border processing when he returns to the United  States.   74.  Mr. Dakwar has a valid, machine-readable U.S. passport and meets is eligible to  apply for Global Entry.   75.  Mr. Dakwar submitted his Global Entry application online on January 9, 2020,  and paid the required $100 application fee.   76.  Upon information and belief, Mr. Dakwar’s application has been cancelled.    John Harland Giammatteo   77.  Plaintiff John Harland Giammatteo is a U.S. citizen who lives in New York, New  York.  He is an immigration attorney in New York City.    78.  Mr. Giammatteo is a frequent international traveler who wishes to enroll in  Global Entry to benefit from expedited processing times at the airport. In addition, he believes  that Global Entry membership would result in more predictable travel times, which would allow  him to save time and plan his work and personal schedules more efficiently.   79.  Mr. Giammatteo has a valid, machine-readable U.S. passport and is eligible to  apply for Global Entry.    81.  This case is brought as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all New York State residents whose applications to  enroll or re-enroll in Global Entry were pending at the time of the New York Ban or who  otherwise intend to enroll or re-enroll in Global Entry.    82.  The proposed class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. According to federal officials, approximately 80,000 New York State residents  had applications to enroll in Global Entry and other TTPs pending when the defendants barred  all the state’s residents from the programs, and approximately 175,000 others will be barred from  applying to re-enroll in 2020 as their memberships expire. In addition, there are potentially tens  or hundreds of thousands of other New York residents who may wish to apply for Global Entry.   84.  The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class with respect to the  legality of the agency action at issue.   85.  The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  They have suffered injury from the agency action at issue and are ready, willing, and able to  serve as class representatives.   86.  Proposed class counsel has extensive experience litigating similar matters on a  class-wide basis.   87.  The New York Ban applies generally to the entire class, so that final injunctive  relief and corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class.  91.  The defendants’ actions as alleged in the Complaint are “contrary to constitutional  right, power, privilege, or immunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).   92.  The defendants’ actions as alleged in the Complaint are “in excess of statutory  jurisdiction, authority, [and] limitations, [and] short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).   93.  The defendants’ actions as alleged in the Complaint are “without observance of  procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).  94.   The defendants’ actions as alleged in the Complaint violate the Tenth  Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Trump Administration’s Retaliation Against Jurisdictions that Do Not Enforce Its  Anti-Immigrant Agenda   Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act    Violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution  