330 F. Supp. 3d 731
D. Conn.2018Background
- J.S.R. (a boy) and V.F.B. (a 14-year-old girl) were separated from their parents after entering the U.S.; both experienced trauma and were placed in ORR custody (Noank).
- Dr. Martin evaluated both children and found symptoms consistent with PTSD: high trauma-scale scores, blunted affect, sleep disturbance, tearfulness, and avoidance.
- Plaintiffs filed habeas petitions and motions for TRO/preliminary injunction challenging the government’s family-separation practice and sought reunification and related relief.
- The Court consolidated the related cases and added each child’s parent as a “next friend”; parents appeared by videoconference.
- Parties agreed a constitutional violation occurred by separating children from parents; dispute concerned appropriate judicial relief given an overlapping nationwide injunction in Ms. L. v. ICE mandating reunification efforts.
- The Court limited relief to remedies addressing the children’s trauma (psychotherapy, communications, and process for determining release/reunification), declining to duplicate Ms. L.’s reunification remedy but ordering a July 18 status conference and daily videoconferences until then.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forcible separation violated substantive due process | Government deprived children of protected liberty interest in family integrity; separations were not narrowly tailored or justified | Policy implementation overlaps with Ms. L.; government lacks need for immediate separate order | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; separation violated substantive due process |
| Whether procedural due process was violated | No notice or hearing was provided before removal; required pre-deprivation process | Government did not offer pre-deprivation process but is complying with Ms. L. implementation | Court: Procedural due process violated; no meaningful notice/hearing occurred |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief should issue now (scope/timing) | Seek immediate reunification, release, psychotherapy, daily contact, and timeline | Relief would duplicate or interfere with Ms. L. implementation; government is working to comply | Court: Grants limited preliminary relief to address children’s trauma and communication; declines to order immediate reunification to avoid duplicating Ms. L. |
| Whether alternative statutory/constitutional claims require separate relief (Rehabilitation Act, APA, Equal Protection) | Separation denies reasonable accommodations for disabled children, arbitrary agency action, and was motivated by animus | Focus on compliance with Ms. L.; argues children receive adequate care and services | Court: Declines to reach those claims; Fifth Amendment due process provides adequate basis for the tailored remedies ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 310 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (preliminary injunction ordering reunification absent findings of parental unfitness)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due process balancing test and right to meaningful hearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (family integrity and parental rights as fundamental liberty interests)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (protection of familial relationships under due process)
- Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1984) (presumption of irreparable harm when constitutional right is alleged)
- Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (judicial process required before child removal except in emergency)
- Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) (equitable remedies shaped by nature and extent of constitutional violation)
- Brock v. Roadway Express, 481 U.S. 252 (1987) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
- New York Progress & Protect. PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483 (2d Cir. 2013) (reciting preliminary injunction factors)
