704 F.Supp.3d 1163
W.D. Wash.2023Background
- Plaintiffs are inadmissible noncitizens who sought asylum, passed credible-fear screenings, and were transferred from expedited to standard removal proceedings but remained detained.
- Historically detained asylum seekers like these received immigration-judge bond hearings; in 2019 the Attorney General (Matter of M-S-) interpreted the statute to mandate detention without bond hearings, leaving parole as the only release route.
- Plaintiffs brought a class action challenging the government’s failure to provide constitutionally adequate bond hearings; the district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction with specific procedural requirements for bond hearings.
- The Ninth Circuit largely upheld that injunction; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Thuraissigiam; the Ninth Circuit then remanded for further consideration in light of additional Supreme Court decisions. The district court vacated the injunction and Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the parties later settled the credible-fear claims, so the motion concerns only the Bond Hearing Class and bond-hearing-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over bond-hearing claims despite IIRIRA §1252 provisions | Claims challenge detention procedures (bond hearings), not the removal/admission decision or implementation of §1225(b), so jurisdiction remains | §1252(a)(2)(A) and §1252(e)(3) strip courts of review over matters relating to §1225(b)(1) and channel certain challenges to D.C. | Court: Denies dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; §1252 provisions do not bar these detention-procedure claims |
| Whether Thuraissigiam forecloses due process claims by inadmissible noncitizens | Thuraissigiam concerned the admission decision; it does not bar due process claims challenging post-admission detention or release procedures | Thuraissigiam limits due process to statutory rights for inadmissible aliens and thus precludes additional constitutional process here | Court: Thuraissigiam is narrow and limited to challenges to admission; it does not bar Plaintiffs’ claim for bond hearings |
| Whether Plaintiffs state a substantive due process claim to release proceedings/bond hearings | Detention imposes a liberty interest; Demore is distinguishable (shorter detention, criminal-aliens focus); lengthy detention here supports a substantive-due-process claim | Defendants rely on Demore and statutory framework to argue no constitutional right to bond hearings | Court: Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged substantive due process claims; Demore is distinguishable |
| Whether Plaintiffs state procedural due process and APA claims as to bond-hearing procedures and remedies | Parole is an inadequate substitute; Plaintiffs allege need for prompt individualized hearings before neutral decisionmakers; procedural-APA challenges to bond-hearing safeguards are reviewable agency action | Defendants: no constitutional right to bond hearings; no final agency action for APA review; statutory scheme preempts relief | Court: Procedural due process adequately alleged; APA claims tied to bond-hearing procedures (Counts II and VI) survive; Counts III and V dismissed/withdrawn |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020) (Supreme Court limited due-process protections for claims seeking admission, focusing on statutory rights regarding admission)
- Padilla v. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 953 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2020) (Ninth Circuit largely upheld district court injunction requiring bond hearings with procedural safeguards)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (Supreme Court construes jurisdictional limits and distinguishes detention-procedure challenges from direct review of removal decisions)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (Due Process protects liberty from indefinite non-punitive immigration detention absent adequate justification and procedural protections)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (Upheld mandatory short-term detention of certain criminal noncitizens; decision is fact-specific and temporally limited)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (Due process requires prompt individualized hearings when detention is nonpunitive)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Framework for evaluating procedural due-process safeguards)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (Due process requires adequate procedural protections to ensure detention reasonably relates to removal and safety objectives)