C.G.B. v. Wolf, 464 F.Supp.3d 174

Background

Ten named transgender women detained in ICE custody at five privately run facilities challenged ICE’s COVID-19 response, seeking classwide release and facility-specific injunctive relief; Plaintiffs also moved to add two additional named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment (conditions of detention), the Administrative Procedure Act (Accardi-based failure to follow ICE’s Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR)), and sought mandamus relief.
ICE and CDC issued guidance (PRR) and facilities provided declarations showing population reductions, cohorting, screening, PPE, enhanced cleaning, and other mitigation efforts; some facilities reported positive COVID-19 cases among detainees and staff.
The government argued jurisdictional limits in the Immigration & Nationality Act (notably 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) and §1226(e)) bar classwide injunctive relief and limit judicial review of parole/detention decisions.
The Court (Cooper, J.) denied motions for class certification and joinder, and denied the emergency TRO as to release; it found some individual plaintiffs (K.R.H., K.M., K.S.) likely to succeed on due process merits but declined injunctive release, ordered limited reporting from the government instead.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification under Rule 23 for all transgender ICE detainees	Nationwide class required because ICE uniformly fails to protect transgender detainees from COVID-19	§1252(f)(1) and Rule 23 considerations preclude classwide injunctions; conditions vary by facility and detainee	Denied — class fails commonality and adequacy; individualized conditions and statutory differences defeat a (b)(2) class
Joinder of two additional plaintiffs (Rule 20)	New plaintiffs’ claims arise from same series of occurrences and share legal questions	Different facilities, facts, and proof required; claims not logically related	Denied — insufficient substantial evidentiary overlap; discretionary joinder refused
TRO and release under Due Process (Fifth Amendment)	Continued detention in unsafe conditions during COVID-19 constitutes punishment or excessive confinement warranting immediate release	ICE substantially complies with PRR at most facilities; detention furthers legitimate immigration interests; release is intrusive and may be jurisdictionally barred	Denied as to broad relief; court found some named individuals likely to succeed on merits (K.R.H., K.M., K.S.) but declined release and instead ordered monitoring/reporting; other plaintiffs failed likelihood-of-success prong
APA / Accardi claim and mandamus relief	ICE’s failure to implement PRR is agency action violating APA and warrants mandamus to compel compliance or release	PRR implementation is facility-specific, not a single final agency action; Accardi addresses procedural rules and final agency acts; mandamus inappropriate for discretionary policy choices	Denied — plaintiffs failed to identify reviewable final agency action under APA or meet mandamus standards; Accardi inapplicable as pleaded

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective standard for pretrial detainee conditions-of-confinement claims)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (test for whether conditions of confinement amount to punishment)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (government’s duty to ensure safety when it confines individuals)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (§1252(f)(1) limits classwide injunctive relief affecting immigration statutes)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (discussing limits on classwide injunctions under immigration statutes and declaratory relief)
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (interpretation of §1226(e) and discretionary detention/release decisions)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (judicial review of statutory scope of detention authority)