Alejandro Rodriguez v. David Marin
909 F.3d 252
9th Cir.2018Background
- Petitioners (Alejandro Rodriguez and others) challenged prolonged mandatory immigration detention without individualized bond hearings, seeking classwide habeas relief; case returned to Ninth Circuit after the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez.
- The Supreme Court held the immigration statutes (8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c)) do not implicitly require periodic individualized bond hearings or reasonableness limits, and remanded constitutional questions to the Ninth Circuit without resolving them.
- The Ninth Circuit follows the Supreme Court's direction and remands to the district court for first-instance consideration of petitioners’ constitutional due process claims and related class issues.
- The panel identified several matters for the district court to decide: whether the class remains certified for constitutional remedies, whether Rule 23(b)(2) and §1252(f)(1) permit classwide relief, subclass composition, minimum due process protections (timing/manner), and reassessment of the clear-and-convincing standard and six-month bond-hearing rule.
- The Ninth Circuit declined to decide the merits of the constitutional challenges (noting its role as a court of review) but expressed serious doubts about the constitutionality of indefinite detention without process and left the permanent injunction in place pending district-court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate class habeas claims | Rodriguez: federal courts (and district court) have habeas jurisdiction and statutes do not clearly strip it | Government: statutory provisions (§1252, §1226(e)) limit review and may preclude classwide relief | Court: jurisdiction exists for these habeas claims; §1252(f)(1), §1252(b)(9), §1226(e) do not bar consideration here; remanded to district court to proceed |
| Whether statutes implicitly require bond hearings/limits on detention | Rodriguez: due process requires individualized hearings for prolonged detention | Government: statutes contain only express exceptions; no implicit hearing requirement | Supreme Court (cited): statutory text contains only express limits; Ninth Circuit follows and remands constitutional question to district court to decide first-instance |
| Whether class certification and Rule 23(b)(2) remain appropriate | Rodriguez: class should remain for constitutional relief and remedies | Government: classwide injunctive relief may be barred by statute and Dukes; Rule 23(b)(2) may be inappropriate | Ninth Circuit: remands to district court to reassess class certification, appropriateness of Rule 23(b)(2), subclass composition, and whether declaratory relief suffices under §1252(f)(1) |
| What due process protections/remedies are required (standard, timing, remedies) | Rodriguez: request for individualized bond hearings, reassessment of clear-and-convincing and six-month rule | Government: defends statutory scheme and procedural standards | Ninth Circuit: declines to decide merits; directs district court to determine minimum due-process requirements, reconsider clear-and-convincing standard and six-month bond-hearing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (Supreme Court held statutes contain only express exceptions and remanded constitutional questions)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process requires certain procedures in liberty-deprivation contexts)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (civil detention is limited to narrow nonpunitive circumstances)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (liberty is the norm; detention is an exception)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (standards for class certification under Rule 23)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (limits on judicial injunctive relief under immigration statutes)
- I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (clear-statement rule for repealing habeas jurisdiction)