ST-HILAIRE v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

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, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:23-cv-01505-TWP-TAB ) COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA BUREAU ) OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER DISMISSING PENDING MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE This matter is before the Court on its sua sponte Order dismissing without prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. (Filing No. 9). This action challenges the constitutionality and legality of Indiana House Enrolled Act 1050 (“H.E.A. 1050”), the relevant portions of which are codified at Indiana Code § 9-14-8-3.5 and Indiana Code § 9-13-2-121.5. The plaintiffs brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defined the putative class as: All current and future Indiana residents admitted to the United States on humanitarian parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) who are not citizens or nationals of Ukraine and who did not last habitually reside in Ukraine, and who are not eligible for a driver’s license or identification card under section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Id. at 1-2. After the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for preliminary injunction, Defendants initiated an appeal and the Court granted the parties joint motion for partial stay of the proceedings, except for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. (Filing No. 54, Filing No. 55). On March 13, 2024, the Governor of Indiana signed into law House Enrolled Act 1162 ("H.E.A. 1162"), which repealed, effective upon passage, Ind. Code §§ 9-13-2-121.5 and 9-14-8- 3.5 in their entirety.' See 2024 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 141-2024, Sections 5, 9 (Mar. 3, 2024) (West). In light of the passage of H.E.A. 1162, it appears that there is no longer an ongoing controversy. More specifically, the plaintiffs’ complaint 1s focused on the particular statutes above’ and the Indiana General Assembly has "repeal[ed], revise[d], or replace[d]" the challenged law of H.E.A. 1050, thereby "remov[ing] the complained-of defect." Ozinga v. Price, 855 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir. 2017). For judicial economy and because the issue of class certification may be mooted, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES without prejudice, the Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 9). If the controversy remains alive, Plaintiff may request leave to refile this motion. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/25/2024 Qrenee Dte Leath Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana 1H.E.A. 1162 additionally deleted Ind. Code § 9-13-2-78(8) (May 4, 2023), see 2024 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 141-2024, Section 3 (Mar. 3, 2024) (West), which although left unmentioned in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, was also under scrutiny as the subsection defined Indiana resident as a person who was living in Indiana and had been granted "parole" status, which Ind. Code § 9-13-2-121.5 defined (see Filing No. 25 at 10). 2 The Complaint additionally requests relief from the emergency rule related to H.E.A. 1050 — i.e., the emergency rule promulgated under LSA Document #23-365(E) (see Filing No. 1-1) — but this relief is dependent upon Ind. Code § 9-13-2-121.5 (see, e.g., LSA Document #23-365(E) at 4 (Section 3 amending 140 IAC 7-1.1-3(a) in terms of Ind. Code § 9-13-2-121.5)). Accordingly, the requested relief from the emergency rule is likewise mooted upon repeal of Ind. Code § 9-13-2-121.5, as the rule has become a nullity for the purposes of providing relief under the Complaint. See Subaru-Isuzu Auto., Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 782 N.E.2d 1071, 1076 n.8 (Ind. T.C. 2003) (citing Hutchison v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 520 N.E.2d 1281, 1283 (Ind. T.C. 1988) ("An administrative rule is a nullity where the provision upon which the rule is based has been repealed").

DISTRIBUTION:

James A. Barta Betsy M. DeNardi OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL james.barta@atg.in.gov betsy.denardi@atg.in.gov

William Bock, III Adam R. Doerr KROGER GARDIS & REGAS wbock@kgrlaw.com adoerr@kgrlaw.com

Tanya Broder Nicholas David Espiritu Lisa Graybill NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER broder@nilc.org espiritu@nilc.org graybill@nilc.org

Gavin Minor Rose Stevie J. Pactor Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA grose@aclu-in.org spactor@aclu-in.org kfalk@aclu-in.org