Angel Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19759

Background

In 2006 Arizona adopted Proposition 100, which bars bail or pretrial release for any person charged with a "serious felony offense" if there is probable cause the person entered or remained in the U.S. illegally; the legislature defined "serious felony" to include class 1–4 felonies and aggravated DUI.
Under Arizona procedure the initial appearance (within ~24 hours) triggers an automatic denial of bail if the two statutory predicates are found; a reexamination hearing (Simpson/Segura) may contest immigration probable cause but not the irrebuttable presumption of flight risk.
Plaintiffs Lopez-Valenzuela and Castro-Armenta filed a class action challenging Proposition 100 on multiple constitutional grounds, seeking individualized bail hearings; the district court granted defendants partial summary judgment on several claims and dismissed federal preemption claims, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit (en banc) reviews whether the categorical denial of bail for undocumented immigrants violates the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and reverses the district court.
The court applies the Salerno/Schall framework for pretrial detention (heightened scrutiny for adult detention implicating core liberty interests) and concludes Proposition 100 is not "carefully limited" or narrowly tailored and therefore facially unconstitutional.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Proposition 100 violates substantive due process (facial challenge) by authorizing categorical pretrial detention of undocumented immigrants	Proposition 100 deprives liberty without narrow tailoring to a compelling interest; arrestees have a fundamental liberty interest in pretrial release	State asserts compelling interest in assuring appearance at trial and contends undocumented status justifies categorical denial because of flight risk	Held for plaintiffs: applies heightened scrutiny (Salerno) and finds law not narrowly tailored; facially unconstitutional
Whether the law imposes punishment before trial (impermissible pretrial punishment)	Bail denial functions as punitive, not regulatory, because it is overbroad and irrebuttable	State contends purpose is regulatory (prevent flight) and not punitive	Held: even assuming regulatory intent, law is excessive relative to that purpose and therefore punitive; violates substantive due process
Whether an irrebuttable presumption (categorical denial) is acceptable without individualized determination of flight risk	Plaintiffs: irrebuttable presumption is overbroad; many undocumented arrestees pose manageable risk and can be supervised	State: undocumented immigrants as a group present unmanageable flight risk; individualized process failed or is inadequate	Held: irrebuttable presumption is not "carefully limited" (no record evidence showing a particularly acute group risk); individualized determinations required or a valid narrow categorical rule must be shown
Other claims (procedural due process, Eighth, Sixth, preemption)	Plaintiffs raised procedural, Eighth, Sixth, and Supremacy Clause claims	State won summary judgment below on these claims; also moved to dismiss preemption claims	Court did not address these claims on the merits because it resolved the case on substantive due process grounds; remands accordingly

Key Cases Cited

Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (excessive bail principle and liberty interest in pretrial release)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (probable-cause judicial determination required for extended postarrest detention)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (48-hour rule for prompt probable-cause hearings)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (two-part test for when pretrial conditions constitute punishment)
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1984) (substantive due process framework for pretrial detention of juveniles)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (upholding Bail Reform Act under heightened scrutiny when carefully limited and providing individualized hearings)
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (upholding mandatory detention of certain criminal aliens under rational-basis review; distinguished here)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (defining substantive due process and requirement to identify fundamental rights)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (due process protections apply to noncitizens within U.S. borders)