449 F.Supp.3d 205
S.D.N.Y.2020Background:
- Ten immigration detainees with chronic medical conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, hypertension, history of severe pneumonia, long-term smokers) were held in three New Jersey county jails (Hudson, Bergen, Essex) pending removal proceedings.
- County jails had confirmed COVID-19 cases among detainees and staff; social distancing and other CDC-recommended measures could not be guaranteed in the facilities.
- Petitioners sought ICE release; counsel notified government of medical vulnerability before filing; petition filed in S.D.N.Y. seeking a TRO under habeas/§2241 and due process theories challenging conditions of confinement.
- The Court held a telephonic hearing on March 26, 2020 and found Petitioners faced an imminent risk of severe illness or death if retained in detention during the COVID-19 outbreak.
- The Court granted a TRO ordering immediate release of Petitioners on their own recognizance and restraining Respondents from re-arresting them for civil immigration detention during the pendency of their proceedings; the TRO was set to expire April 9, 2020, with a show-cause date of April 2, 2020.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm from continued detention during COVID-19 | Continued confinement in facilities with COVID-19 and underlying conditions creates imminent risk of serious illness/death | Facilities screen, isolate symptomatic detainees, provide hygiene supplies, and are below full capacity | Court: Petitioners showed actual and imminent irreparable harm (health and constitutional) |
| Likelihood of success on due process claim (conditions = deliberate indifference) | Petitioners: officials knew/should have known detention posed excessive risk and failed to take adequate measures | Respondents: mitigation steps in place; could not guarantee social distancing or targeted protections for high-risk detainees | Court: Likely to succeed; conditions pose unreasonable risk and demonstrate deliberate indifference |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Release protects Petitioners’ health; counsel will ensure immigration appearance; public health favors reducing detention density | Government interest in custody and immigration enforcement, including mandatory detention classifications | Court: Equities and public interest weigh for release; limited harm to government; public health supports release |
| Effect of mandatory-detention statute (8 U.S.C. §1226(c)) on relief | Petitioners: statutory detention does not bar court from ordering release to remedy due process violations | Respondents: statute requires mandatory detention for some detainees (e.g., Martinez, Pena) | Court: Statutory mandatory detention does not preclude relief when due process violated; release ordered despite §1226(c) detention claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (exposure to a serious communicable disease can violate inmates’ constitutional rights even absent current symptoms)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard for due-process deliberate indifference by officials to detainees’ health risks)
- Charles v. Orange Cty., 925 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (deliberate indifference may be shown under subjective or objective standards for pretrial detainees)
- Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2002) (conditions posing unreasonable risk of serious future health constitute constitutional violation)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (Fifth Amendment due process protections apply to all persons within the United States, including aliens)
- Roba v. United States, 604 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1979) (§2241 habeas is appropriate to challenge custody transfers or conditions posing threat to medical wellbeing)
- Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is the critical prerequisite for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) (alleged constitutional violation triggers a finding of irreparable injury)
- Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. OSHA, 356 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2004) (alleged constitutional violations support irreparable-harm findings)
- Cabral v. Decker, 331 F. Supp. 3d 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (courts may order release despite §1226(c) mandatory-detention claims when constitutional rights are implicated)