905 F.3d 1137
9th Cir.2018Background
- Class action by noncitizen minors who entered the U.S. unaccompanied, were placed in ORR custody, and were released to sponsors after ORR found them not dangerous and not flight risks.
- ICE arrested several of these minors in 2017 (Operation Matador) on alleged gang-affiliation grounds and placed them in secure juvenile detention, revoking prior ORR placements.
- District court provisionally certified a class of minors rearrested on or after April 1, 2017, after prior ORR release to sponsors, and enjoined the government to provide a prompt hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to contest the gang allegations.
- The injunction required notice to minor and sponsor and a hearing within seven days of arrest (absent extraordinary circumstances), in the jurisdiction of arrest or residence, with return to the prior sponsor if the adjudicator finds no danger/flight risk.
- The government appealed, arguing the injunction conflicted with the TVPRA and Flores procedures and that existing ORR/Flores remedies were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minors rearrested after ORR release are entitled to a prompt hearing to contest gang-affiliation allegations before continued detention | Saravia: Due process (Mathews) requires a prompt neutral hearing to contest the changed-circumstances justification for detention and revocation of ORR placement | Government: Existing TVPRA review and Flores bond hearings suffice; injunction conflicts with TVPRA placement/verification requirements and Flores process | Court: Affirmed injunction; due process requires a prompt hearing and the district court did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether the district court’s injunction conflicts with the TVPRA requirement to verify sponsor suitability before placement | Saravia: Injunction merely restores prior ORR-approved placement; no re-verification required where ORR already cleared sponsor | Government: TVPRA bars placement without ORR re-verification; injunction interferes with statutory scheme | Court: No conflict; injunction returns minors to previously vetted sponsors and does not bar transfers to ORR or compliance with TVPRA timing/exceptions |
| Whether ORR’s internal review and Flores bond hearings adequately protect minors’ procedural rights | Saravia: Those procedures are insufficient because internal review is unilateral (no notice/opportunity to respond) and Flores hearings address initial detention and do not guarantee prompt release to a sponsor | Government: Internal review and Flores hearings provide adequate process | Court: Agreed with Saravia—existing procedures appear inadequate on current record; Flores hearings can be delayed and do not ensure timely placement |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in structuring the injunction (timing/location of hearings) | Saravia: Locating hearings near arrest/residence and prompt (7 days) is necessary to prevent indefinite detention and permit meaningful factfinding where witnesses/evidence are | Government: Burdensome because detention infrastructure limited | Court: District court acted within discretion; benefits of prompt, local hearings outweigh governmental burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing governs administrative deprivation of liberty)
- Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863 (9th Cir.) (Flores settlement guarantees bond hearings but release requires verified safe placement)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (due process protections apply before termination of statutory benefits)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (procedural due process constraints on deprivation of established rights)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (transfer to more restrictive confinement triggers due process protections)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (government detention of noncitizens constrained by due process)
- Preap v. Johnson, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (authority to arrest/detain noncitizens under INA)