16 F.4th 613
9th Cir.2021Background
- In March–April 2020 five named immigration detainees (and two orgs) sought a nationwide preliminary injunction and provisional class certification challenging ICE’s national COVID-19 directives as amounting to constitutional (Fifth Amendment) and statutory (Rehabilitation Act §504) violations for medically vulnerable detainees.
- The district court provisionally certified two nationwide subclasses (medically at-risk detainees and detainees with disabilities) and issued a broad preliminary injunction in April 2020 requiring ICE to identify/track at-risk detainees, make custody reviews, adopt/enforce a Performance Standard supplementing the Pandemic Response Requirements, and monitor compliance; the court later clarified/additionally directed more-specific measures in October 2020.
- ICE had issued a series of pandemic-related guidance from January–April 2020 (IHSC Interim Reference Sheet, March 27 Action Plan, April 4 Docket Review guidance, April 10 Pandemic Response Requirements), including many CDC-based recommendations and some mandatory elements, but used a mix of mandatory and discretionary language for specific custody-review and mitigation measures.
- The government appealed the preliminary injunction (but did not obtain a stay) arguing the injunction was overbroad, intruded on executive functions, and that plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on deliberate indifference, punitive-conditions, or Rehabilitation Act claims.
- The Ninth Circuit majority vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded, holding plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits—emphasizing (1) the demanding “reckless disregard”/objective standard for deliberate indifference to justify nationwide, system-wide relief, and (2) deference to executive immigration/detention policymaking during an evolving pandemic.
- Judge Berzon dissented, arguing the panel misapplied the preliminary-injunction standards (sliding-scale approach and abuse-of-discretion review) and improperly evaluated the reckless-disregard claim, and would have left the injunction or referred the parties to mediation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICE’s national COVID-19 directives reflected unconstitutional deliberate indifference/reckless disregard to medically vulnerable detainees’ medical needs under the Fifth Amendment | ICE’s national guidance was inadequate or discretionary, failed to identify/track high-risk detainees, and did not mandate protections—so plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a systemwide deliberate-indifference claim | ICE issued multiple evolving directives (some mandatory), adopted CDC guidance, created mitigation plans and release-review procedures; evidence does not show reckless disregard needed for systemwide relief | Vacated injunction: plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or serious questions on a systemwide deliberate-indifference claim given ICE’s multiple directives and deference to executive management of detention during a pandemic |
| Whether ICE’s COVID-19 policies constituted unconstitutional punitive conditions of confinement under the Fifth Amendment | Failure to mandate protections made confinement punitive for medically vulnerable detainees; court could order relief including population reductions or releases | Detention serves legitimate nonpunitive governmental objectives (immigration control); policies were related to legitimate aims and not excessive | Reversed: plaintiffs did not show likelihood of success on punitive-conditions theory; legitimate objectives and policies’ relation to those objectives defeat presumption of punishment |
| Whether ICE violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying benefits to detainees with disabilities solely because of disability | Policies disadvantaged disabled detainees and denied them participation/benefits of the immigration process | Plaintiffs have not identified any discrete “benefit” denied solely because of disability; policies applied to all detainees and were not shown to single out disabled persons | Reversed: plaintiffs failed to show they were denied a program benefit “solely by reason” of disability |
| Whether nationwide class-wide preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate | Nationwide injunctive relief was necessary to remedy systemwide policy failures affecting all facilities and subclass members | Nationwide injunction intrudes on executive authority and required a high showing of systemic constitutional violation; remedy not properly tailored | Reversed: injunction too sweeping; plaintiffs did not meet the high burden required to permit far-reaching judicial control of executive immigration-detention policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018) (elements for deliberate-indifference claim in detention context; objective “reckless disregard” standard)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (deliberate indifference requires something akin to reckless disregard)
- Roman v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2020) (vacating facility-specific COVID-19 injunction provisions; guidance on limits to micromanaging detention operations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale/serious-questions variant of Winter)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (deference to executive administration of detention; standard for punitive conditions for pretrial detainees)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment claim may be based on exposure to substantial risk of serious harm; remedy may be prophylactic)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (upholding systemic remedies for prison conditions where necessary; caution about separation-of-powers implications)
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (test for punitive conditions; comparative-presumption framework)