Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Editor’s note: This article has been updated.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction Thursday that allows residents who live in the state under federal humanitarian protections access to Indiana driver’s licenses or identification cards.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit along with the National Immigration Law Center in August of last year.
The lawsuit came on the behalf of five Indiana residents from Haiti who work under the federal protections and wanted to get an Indiana driver’s license or identification card.
“This injunction upholds the principles underlying the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by rejecting Indiana’s blatant attempt to discriminate against persons based on where they are from,” Gavin M. Rose, ACLU of Indiana senior attorney said in a news release. “We will continue to pursue this case to ensure that Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians have an equal opportunity to support their families, and communities.”
The complaint challenged House Enrolled Act 1050, otherwise known as Indiana Code § 9-13-2-121.5, which created a pathway for individuals on humanitarian parole to obtain Indiana driver’s licenses or identification cards, but only if they are from Ukraine.
“A driver’s license is necessary for me to get to work and be a fully independent member of my community, particularly in rural Indiana where I live,” Jeffson St-Hilaire, a plaintiff in the case said in a news release. “I am relieved by today’s decision, which will help me be self-reliant and give back to my community. I plan to continue advocating for justice alongside the other plaintiffs, because getting a driver’s license should be dependent on following the rules of the road, not on the country where you were born. Today’s decision is a step forward in the direction of justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of our community. It sends a powerful message that everyone, regardless of their immigration status or country of origin, deserves equal treatment.”
The district court found the Haitian humanitarian parolees have a strong likelihood of success on their challenges.
The plaintiffs challenged the 2023 law, alleging it is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, preempted by federal law and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A spokesperson from the Indiana Office of Attorney General issued a statement that read: “The Indiana General Assembly had good intentions and we made the best arguments for the law’s constitutionality. Clearly, the “no borders” crowd is unwilling to follow federal immigration law by granting parole status en masse, rather than on a case-by-case basis. This lawlessness by the Biden administration impairs the ability of Indiana to ensure the security of its driver’s license program. We are reviewing the Court’s order and advising the General Assembly on its options, including appeal.”
The district court addressed the Title VI claim, stating that it agrees with the plaintiffs that the commissioner does not argue they fail to meet any of the “classification’ criteria other than the national origin requirement.
“On first blush, the decision to incorporate this statute, and no other, and tether eligibility requirements for state-issued identification to a federal law addressing humanitarian parolees from Ukraine, but from no other country, seems to be national-origin discrimination by another name,” Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt wrote. “Nevertheless, since the Court finds that the Haitian Humanitarian Parolees are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that H.E.A. 1050 constitutes impermissible discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, see infra, the Court need not now determine the issue of whether Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their argument concerning Title VI.”
Next, turning to the preemption claim, the chief judge stated that while Indiana can impose eligibility requirements to receive a license, it cannot discriminate between persons sharing the same federal immigrant status.
“In sum, when H.E.A. 1050 attempts in Section 17 to prune Haitians (or Venezuelans, or Cubans, or Nicaraguans, etc.) from the definition of parolees, it impermissibly differentiates between groups of parolees as distinct from other groups in a manner that Congress’s grant of authority to the Attorney General cannot be said to have contemplated,” Pratt wrote. “Singling out a subset of aliens, then, fetters the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s purposes and objectives: effectively it is Indiana, and not the federal government, classifying between parolees when the state forecloses driver’s licenses, identification cards, and vehicular titles from discrete subclasses of aliens also granted parole under the same discretionary authority, but who do not meet certain criteria (regardless of whether Congress established the criteria).”
Lastly, the court looked at the plaintiff’s equal protection claim. It found that the Haitian humanitarian parolees have shown that strict scrutiny applies.
“What the Commissioner cannot do with respect to one, he certainly cannot do with respect to the other,” Pratt wrote.
The court then looked at the application of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.
“Having failed to survive strict scrutiny by a wide margin, there is a strong likelihood that H.E.A. 1050’s provision of credentials to certain Ukrainian parolees and no other humanitarian parolees violates the Equal Protection Clause,” Pratt wrote.
The court further stated that harm from unconstitutional discrimination is “intangible and unquantifiable,” as governmental discrimination has consequences beyond what money could ever rectify.
“Such an ongoing constitutional violation constitutes irreparable harm,” Pratt wrote.
When looking at the balance of harms, the district court found that not issuing an injunction risks the imposition of significant harm on humanitarian parolees by depriving them of the privileges associated with having a drivers license, identification cards and vehicle titles.
“In sum, the Court determines that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting an injunction for the Haitian Humanitarian Parolees. An injunction prohibiting the implementation of the offending language in Section 17, H.E.A. 1050 will impose minimal, if any, additional harm or burdens on the Commissioner concerning their credentialing efforts,” Pratt wrote.
Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker has been asked to enter a case management plan for resolving the case.
“Today’s decision reaffirms what we and many Hoosiers already know to be true: All of us, no matter where we were born, should be able to safely get to where we need to go in our communities,” Nicholas Espíritu, an attorney with NILC, said in a news release. “A driver’s license is crucial for people to go to work, pick their kids up from school, visit the doctor’s office, and get to other essential places. Blocking people from getting a driver’s license because of where they were born, in addition to being unconstitutional and unjust, hurts community safety. We will continue to fight for the ability of all Hoosiers to access a driver’s license or state ID.”
The case is Jeffson St-Hilaire, Merlange meme, Evenks Meme, Nadege Jean Marie, L.M.D.M. by her next friend Martin Welp, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 1:23-cv-1505.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.