405 F.Supp.3d 467
W.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Petitioners are arriving asylum-seekers detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility after passing credible-fear interviews and held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) for more than six months without bond hearings.
- This Court previously certified a subclass of such detainees and entered a preliminary injunction requiring individualized bond hearings for subclass members detained six months or more.
- The Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez held that § 1225(b) cannot plausibly be read to contain an implicit six-month statutory limit requiring bond hearings, and remanded unresolved constitutional questions for further consideration.
- After Jennings, Respondents moved to decertify the subclass and to vacate the preliminary injunction; Petitioners sought enforcement of the injunction.
- The district court reexamined certification under Rule 23 in light of Jennings and Dukes, concluded it need not decide the constitutional due-process question, and held the subclass no longer satisfies Rule 23(b)(2); it decertified the subclass and vacated the injunction as to that subclass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1225(b) or the Constitution requires a six-month automatic bond hearing | Abdi: Due process entitles subclass members to bond hearings after six months of detention. | Gov't: Jennings eliminated any statutory six-month requirement; constitutional claims must be assessed individually. | Court: Jennings removed the statutory basis; the court did not decide the constitutional question but rejected a categorical six-month constitutional rule. |
| Whether the previously certified subclass remains certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2) | Abdi: The question whether due process requires bond hearings is common to the class and supports (b)(2) certification. | Gov't: Due-process analysis is fact-specific; individualized inquiries defeat commonality and indivisibility under Dukes. | Court: The subclass fails Rule 23(b)(2)/commonality post-Jennings and must be decertified. |
| Whether the court may grant class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) | Abdi: Court retains jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief. | Gov't: § 1252(f)(1) bars district courts from enjoining operation of §§1221–1232, so class-wide relief is impermissible. | Court: Moot in light of decertification; the court did not resolve the §1252(f)(1) jurisdictional argument. |
| Disposition of pending motions to vacate or enforce the injunction | Abdi: Injunction should be enforced; Respondents not fully complying. | Gov't: The injunction should be vacated following Jennings and decertification. | Court: Decertified subclass and vacated the part of the injunction applying to it; motions to vacate/enforce otherwise denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (held § 1225(b) cannot plausibly be read to contain an implicit six-month time limit; remanded constitutional questions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) permits class certification only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to every class member)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (class certifications may be revisited and altered before final judgment)
- Lara v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015) (adopted a six-month bright-line rule for bond hearings in the § 1226(c) context pre-Jennings)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (framework for reviewing mandatory immigration detention under due process)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (reasonableness of detention assessed case-by-case under due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (rejects categorical due-process prohibition on pretrial detention; endorses balancing/regulatory analysis)
- Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970) (six-month threshold for jury trial in criminal cases based on historical practice)
- Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975) (recognizes the gravity of several months' incarceration)
- Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 775 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2014) (district courts must reassess class rulings as the case develops)
- Dale v. Hahn, 440 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1971) (advocates case-by-case resolution where statute may be unconstitutional as applied to some class members)