Hassoun v. Searls, 976 F.3d 121

Adham Hassoun, convicted on terrorism-related federal charges, was placed in immigration detention after release from prison and subject to a final order of removal.
The district court granted habeas relief under Zadvydas for detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and later held that 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) could not authorize his continued detention, ordering his release.
The government invoked 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) and appealed the district court rulings; this Court granted a stay pending appeal and promised an opinion.
While the appeal was pending, the government removed Hassoun to a third country (effectuated July 21, 2020) and then moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and to vacate the district-court decisions concerning § 241.14(d).
Hassoun agreed the appeal was moot but opposed vacatur of the district-court rulings and separately sought vacatur of this Court’s stay-panel opinion.
The panel concluded the appeal is moot, vacated the district-court decisions as to 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d), denied vacatur of the Court’s stay-panel opinion, dismissed the appeal, and remanded with instructions to dismiss Hassoun’s § 241.14(d) challenge as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot (timing)	Hassoun: case was "practically moot" as of July 13 based on government's representations of imminent removal	Govt: case became moot when removal was effectuated (July 21)	Case became moot upon removal; appeal dismissed as moot
Whether district-court rulings on 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) should be vacated	Hassoun: gov’t actively mooted the case to avoid appellate review, so vacatur is unwarranted	Govt: vacatur appropriate to prevent unreviewed judgments from having legal consequences; mootness resulted from statutory removal obligations and circumstances	Vacatur of the district-court decisions related to § 241.14(d) is warranted; judgment vacated and remanded to dismiss as moot
Whether this Court’s stay-panel opinion should be vacated	Hassoun: asks vacatur because the case was practically moot when the stay was granted/published	Govt: stay-panel opinion has no preclusive effects and should not be vacated	Denied — stay-panel opinion not vacated; stay orders lack preclusive merit and pose no legal consequences to parties
Whether the government intentionally mooted the appeal (appellant’s fault)	Hassoun: government acted intentionally to moot the appeal	Govt: removal flowed from statutory obligations and longstanding removal efforts, not an intent to moot	Court finds removal resulted from statutory process and happenstance, not an intent to moot; equities support vacatur of district-court rulings

Munsingwear, Inc. v. United States, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur doctrine to prevent unreviewed judgments from spawning legal consequences)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (endorsing practice of vacating lower-court judgments when case becomes moot on appeal)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (framework for post-removal-period detention under § 1231(a)(6))
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (factors governing issuance of stays pending appeal)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (equitable inquiry into vacatur; mootness by happenstance vs. voluntary action)
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (case-or-controversy requirement; mootness doctrine)
Russman v. Board of Educ., 260 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001) (appellant’s fault in causing mootness can preclude vacatur)
Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (vacatur appropriate where appellant vigorously pursued appeal and mootness arose from independent obligations)
Azar v. Garza, 138 S. Ct. 1790 (2018) (distinguishing cases where prevailing party voluntarily mooted appeal and retained benefits of judgment)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (vacating portions of lower-court opinion addressing mooted issues)