261 F. Supp. 3d 820
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- In June 2017 ICE arrested and sought to remove hundreds of Iraqi nationals subject to long‑standing final removal orders after Iraq agreed to issue travel documents; detainees were held in facilities across many states and repeatedly transferred.
- Petitioners (a putative class of Iraqis, many religious minorities) filed a habeas class action and sought a TRO/preliminary injunction to halt removals so they could file motions to reopen based on changed country conditions (INA non‑refoulement, CAT/FARRA) and seek appellate stays if necessary.
- Petitioners showed difficulty preparing motions to reopen: need for A‑files/ROPs (often via FOIA), high cost, voluminous evidence, and significant disruption of counsel access caused by transfers, limited phone/visit access, and compressed removal scheduling.
- Government argued lack of district‑court jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act / 8 U.S.C. § 1252, that administrative motions to reopen (and petitions for review) are adequate, and that habeas is inappropriate for transfer‑type challenges.
- The court found extraordinary, as‑applied circumstances (widespread, sudden enforcement; transfers that impeded counsel access; imminent risk of torture/persecution) and ruled the REAL ID Act could not be applied in a way that would suspend habeas rights.
- The court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of final removal orders for class members until they receive A‑files/ROPs and have a meaningful opportunity to file/adjudicate motions to reopen and seek appellate stays, subject to specific termination events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Suspension Clause | Hamama: REAL ID cannot bar district habeas because extraordinary facts make the statutory alternative (motion to reopen + PFR) inadequate and suspension of habeas would result | Adducci: REAL ID §1252 divests district courts; administrative motion‑to‑reopen process and appellate review are adequate; habeas inappropriate for transfer challenges | Court: As‑applied Suspension Clause violation — REAL ID cannot be enforced here; district court has jurisdiction to preserve habeas and order injunctive relief to ensure meaningful access to administrative review |
| Availability of pre‑removal adjudication | Hamama: INA/CAT/FARRA and §1229a(c)(7) entitle detainees to meaningful adjudication before removal (or at least to the opportunity to file motions to reopen and seek stays) | Adducci: Statutes/regulations do not guarantee pre‑removal adjudication; regs show motions to reopen do not automatically stay removal; administrative remedies are adequate | Court: No statutory right to automatic stay, but due process and habeas concerns require injunction to preserve meaningful opportunity to access motions to reopen and appellate review under extraordinary circumstances |
| Procedural due process (access to counsel / meaningful hearing) | Hamama: Transfers, limited phone/visit access, FOIA delays, costs, and compressed scheduling deprive class of meaningful time/manner to present reopening claims | Adducci: Immigration courts and BIA can and do handle emergency stays; conditions at facilities provide phone access; some motions have been filed and adjudicated | Court: Petitioners likely to succeed on due process claim because record shows significant, class‑wide impediments to accessing administrative process and severe prejudice if removed first |
| Equitable balance / irreparable harm | Hamama: Removal risks torture, persecution, or death (irreparable); short delay to file/adjudicate motions imposes minimal government harm and serves public interest in fairness | Adducci: Government interest in efficient removals and reliance on administrative scheme; claimed harms to removal program | Court: Irreparable harm established (risk of torture/death); government/public interests do not outweigh need to preserve habeas/access; injunction appropriate pending filings/adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (federal courts have habeas jurisdiction over transfer challenges but declined to block transfer where foreign‑sovereign prosecution/comity and only speculative mistreatment were present)
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (habeas jurisdiction exists for transfer challenges but relief declined where government assured no transfer to likely torture)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is threshold and fundamental)
- I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (Suspension Clause requires some judicial review in deportation contexts)
- Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2009) (facially petition for review provides adequate alternative; allows possibility of as‑applied Suspension Clause challenges)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standards and balance of equities for stays)
- Six Clinics Holding Corp. II v. Cafcomp Sys., 119 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 1997) (standard for showing likelihood of success on preliminary injunction)
- Elgharib v. Napolitano, 600 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2010) (habeas jurisdiction in immigration contexts)