Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) preempts judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the denial or revocation of a passport for a United States citizenship claimant abroad, notwithstanding that this construction was explicitly rejected by Rusk v. Cort

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners were born, and their births were timely registered, in Brownsville, Texas. Ms. Hinojosa, who had been residing in Mexico, applied for, and was denied, a United States passport. By contrast, Ms. Villafranca, who was residing with her family in Texas, had a U.S. passport, but the State Department revoked it. When she sought re-entry the following day, her passport was confiscated, and she was returned to Mexico. Both women are now stranded in Mexico. They sought judicial review of the denial/revocation of their passports, under the Administrative Procedure Act, as authorized by Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 375-379 (1962).! The district court dismissed their actions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that they were required to exhaust the procedures of 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c). Over a strong dissent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Hinojosa et al. v. Horn et al., 896 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2018). The questions presented are therefore as follows: e Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) preempts judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the denial or revocation of a passport for a United States citizenship claimant abroad, notwithstanding that this construction was explicitly rejected by Rusk v. Cort, 369 US. at 379. ! Abrogated by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977), on the grounds that the Administrative Procedure Act does not provide jurisdiction. li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued e Whether the majority opinion erred in characterizing this Court’s analysis of §$1503(b)-(c) in Rusk v. Cort as a “casespecific application of the adequacy requirement to §1503” that had “no bearing” on Petitioners’ cases. e Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) provides an adequate remedy within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §704, even though, as the dissenting Judge noted, citing US. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S.Ct. 1807,1815 (2016), it would entail an “arduous, expensive, and long” process, because under §15038(c), Petitioners would be treated as “aliens seeking admission,” thus triggering lengthy administrative detention and other harsh consequences imposed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), on such persons. e Whether §1503(c)’s requirement that Petitioners be treated as “aliens seeking admission” is inconsistent with the fact that both have facially valid Texas birth certificates, but the conditions imposed by IIRIRA on “aliens seeking admission” eliminate the Due Process protections at the border to which this documentation would entitle them under Kent v. Dulles, ili QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 357 U.S. 116, 129-130 (1958), and Hernandez v. Cremer, 913 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1990). e Whether, as suggested in Rusk v. Cort, and reiterated in Sackett v. E.PA., 566 US. 120, 127 (2012), a remedy which may be sought from a different agency than the one whose action is challenged is not an adequate alternative to APA review for purposes of 5 U.S.C. §704, such that the procedures imposed by 8 U.S.C. §1503(c), which are conducted by the Department of Justice, do not provide an adequate remedy for the actions of the Department of State, denying and revoking Petitioners’ U.S. passports.