968 F.3d 190
2d Cir.2020Background
- Adham Amin Hassoun, stateless and ordered removed in 2003 for visa violations, served a federal sentence (convicted of terrorism-related offenses) and was held in immigration custody after release from prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
- DHS sought removal but could not obtain travel documents; district court applied Zadvydas and concluded § 1231(a)(6) no longer authorized continued detention when removal was not reasonably foreseeable.
- DHS then certified continued detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) (targeting aliens who pose a national security/terrorism risk) and later invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1226a (Patriot Act) as an additional basis.
- The district court held § 241.14(d) inconsistent with § 1231(a)(6) and inadequate on procedural-due-process grounds, and also held § 1226a inapplicable, ordering release.
- The government appealed and moved for a stay of release; the Second Circuit granted a stay (July 16, 2020), concluding the government made a strong showing of likelihood of success and irreparable harm pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: which circuit reviews appeal when § 1226a is invoked | Hassoun: invocation of § 1226a makes D.C. Circuit the exclusive forum for appeal of the district court’s final order | Gov’t: § 1226a’s exclusive D.C. Circuit review applies only to claims "relating to" § 1226a; challenges to § 241.14(d) remain in regional circuit | Court: regional circuit (Second Circuit) has jurisdiction to review § 241.14(d) ruling; § 1226a does not strip regional courts of unrelated issue review |
| Statutory consistency: whether 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) permissibly interprets 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) | Hassoun: Zadvydas/Clark limit § 1231(a)(6) to prevent indefinite detention and preclude regulation-authorized preventive detention | Gov’t: § 1231(a)(6) is ambiguous and permits narrow detention of specially dangerous aliens; § 241.14(d) is a reasonable, Chevron-eligible interpretation, especially on national-security matters | Court: Gov’t made a strong showing § 241.14(d) is a permissible reading of § 1231(a)(6), consistent with Zadvydas’ carve-outs for terrorism/national security |
| Procedural due process: adequacy of § 241.14(d)’s procedures (neutral adjudicator; burden of proof) | Hassoun: regulation lacks neutral decisionmaker and fails to require clear-and-convincing proof for indefinite detention | Gov’t: procedures (notice, opportunity to examine evidence, interview, and habeas review) are adequate; heightened deference and national-security context support a preponderance standard | Court: Gov’t likely to prevail; habeas review and existing procedures suffice and preponderance (not clear-and-convincing) is likely adequate given the context |
| Stay factors / irreparable harm: whether release pending appeal would cause irreparable harm | Hassoun: release could be supervised and conditions would mitigate risk; substantial liberty interest favors release | Gov’t: release would pose national-security risk and burdens on law enforcement that cannot be fully mitigated | Court: balance favors stay—gov’t showed irreparable harm and public-interest (national security) supports temporary detention pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (construed § 1231(a)(6) to include a reasonable-time limitation and carved out terrorism/national-security exceptions)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (applied Zadvydas’ limiting construction to inadmissible aliens)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (jurisdictional principles for habeas appeals)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency interpretations can receive Chevron deference despite prior judicial constructions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for assessing procedural due process protections)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (clear-and-convincing standard in civil commitment context)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (permitting shifting burdens and reliance on government evidence in national-security detention contexts)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (recognizing compelling government interest in national security)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (considerations for release pending appeal and balancing of equities)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (aliens do not have an absolute right to remain in the United States)