Jones v. Mayorkas
1:20-cv-00361
W.D.N.Y.Apr 7, 2020Background
- Petitioners are 13 civil immigration detainees at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), each age >50 and/or with serious medical conditions, who filed an emergency habeas petition and TRO seeking release due to COVID-19 risks.
- On April 2, 2020 the Court granted the TRO in part, holding that BFDF’s then-current conditions during the pandemic violated petitioners’ substantive due process right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, but declined to order immediate release at that time.
- The Court ordered respondents to provide vulnerable detainees with living arrangements that permit CDC-recommended social distancing.
- Respondents identified 13 vulnerable detainees: 8 were given individual cells; 5 remained in dormitory units with vacant beds between occupants. Respondents cited Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNS) and limited cell availability as constraints.
- The Court found housing vulnerable detainees in dormitory-style settings insufficient, prioritized petitioners’ constitutional rights over PBNS where safe, and directed respondents to clarify implementation (affidavits regarding CDC criteria, PPE, housing, or else show cause for population reduction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BFDF conditions amid COVID-19 violate substantive due process | Continued detention in current conditions creates unreasonable risk to vulnerable detainees’ health | Respondents implemented social distancing measures and complied with PBNS; conditions are being mitigated | Court: Conditions violated substantive due process as then-presented; relief required to ensure safe conditions |
| Appropriate remedy: immediate release vs. facility measures | Release is necessary to protect vulnerable detainees from COVID-19 | Release not necessary if facility can provide adequate social distancing and protections | Court: Not yet convinced release required; ordered remedial measures (individual cells/spacing) before release |
| Adequacy of dormitory housing with spacing measures | Dormitory-style housing, even with vacant beds, is insufficient for vulnerable detainees | Spacing, mealtime adjustments, pre-screening, PPE, and outdoor recreation can achieve social distancing "as far as practicable" | Court: Dormitory housing insufficient for vulnerable individuals; individual cells or alternative safe housing required |
| Relationship between PBNS and constitutional obligations | Constitutional rights to safe conditions override administrative housing rules | PBNS limit housing options (segregation of low/high security detainees) and affect practicability | Court: Constitutional protections outweigh PBNS; respondents may house low-level detainees in higher-security units if it does not endanger others |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion did not cite any authorities with official reporter citations.