History
  • No items yet
midpage
330 F. Supp. 3d 731
D. Conn.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: J.S.R. v. Sessions
Court Name: District Court, D. Connecticut
Date Published: Jul 13, 2018
Citations: 330 F. Supp. 3d 731; No. 3:18-cv-01106-VAB
Docket Number: No. 3:18-cv-01106-VAB
Court Abbreviation: D. Conn.
Log In
    J.S.R. v. Sessions, 330 F. Supp. 3d 731