141 F.4th 279
D.C. Cir.2025Background
- N.S., a criminal defendant in D.C. Superior Court, was ordered released by a magistrate judge but was immediately detained by U.S. Marshals based on an ICE detainer for civil immigration violations.
- N.S., representing a proposed class, sued the U.S. Marshal, challenging the Marshals’ authority to make civil immigration arrests, arguing it exceeded statutory authority without required training.
- The district court permanently enjoined the Marshals from detaining defendants for civil immigration violations, finding they lacked proper training and authority.
- The Marshals appealed, arguing they were validly delegated arrest authority by internal DOJ orders and that the injunction was overbroad.
- While the case was pending, a new 2025 DHS order again purported to delegate arrest authority to the Marshals but did not relieve them of training requirements.
- The case turned on both the lawfulness of the arrest and the scope of injunctive relief under federal statutes limiting courts’ authority over immigration enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to make civil immigration arrests | Marshals lack delegated statutory authority | Delegation orders (1996, 2002, 2025) grant authority | Marshals have no authority without required training |
| Requirement of training for Marshals | Training is required for civil immigration arrests | Training isn’t required for individuals designated by order | Training is mandatory; delegation doesn’t override this |
| Class-wide injunction under § 1252(f)(1) | Statute is not jurisdictional and doesn't bar injunction | Statute bars class-wide injunctions against immigration enforcement | Statute bars class-wide injunction; injunction vacated |
| Application of new DHS delegation order (2025) | New order does not cure prior lack of authority | New order moots challenge to arrest authority post-2025 | New order validly delegates but does not change training req |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (authority and limits of federal immigration detention)
- Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (scope of statutory delegation within INA)
- Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (federal scheme for immigration regulation pre-empts general delegation)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (courts must assess agency action based only on agency’s stated grounds)
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (scope of § 1252(f)(1) bar on judicial injunctive relief in immigration cases)
- Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (discussing waivable nature of § 1252(f)(1) and relief limitations)