Reid v. Donelan
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6713
1st Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Mark Anthony Reid, a lawful permanent resident with prior criminal convictions, was detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) after finishing criminal custody and denied a bond hearing; he filed habeas and a class action challenging prolonged mandatory detention.
- The district court held § 1226(c) permits mandatory detention only for a “reasonable” period and adopted a bright-line six-month presumption of unreasonableness, ordering bond hearings for detainees held over six months; it also granted Reid relief individually.
- The government appealed the district court’s reading of § 1226(c) (reasonableness requirement and six-month rule); Reid cross‑appealed limited rulings on procedural protections for class bond hearings.
- The First Circuit rejected a universal six-month presumption, instead adopting an individualized, fact-dependent “reasonableness” inquiry into continued categorical detention under § 1226(c).
- Applying that test, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of relief to Reid, concluding his 14-month detention had become unreasonable; it vacated the class-wide judgment and remanded for reconsideration of class certification in light of the case‑by‑case rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1226(c) contains an implicit reasonableness limitation on mandatory detention | §1226(c) authorizes only mandatory detention for a reasonable/brief period; otherwise detainees must get bond hearings | §1226(c) permits categorical detention without an immediate individualized reasonableness check; Demore permits categorical custody | Court: Read an implicit reasonableness requirement into §1226(c); categorical detention constitutional only for a reasonable duration |
| Whether a bright-line six-month presumption of unreasonableness applies | Six-month bright-line rule required (like Second and Ninth Circuits) to provide certainty and avoid inconsistent habeas litigation | Six-month presumption improperly imports Zadvydas logic and conflicts with Demore; reasonableness must be fact-specific | Court: Rejects universal six-month rule; adopts individualized, fact-dependent inquiry (follow Third and Sixth Circuits) |
| Whether Reid’s continued detention was unreasonable (individual relief) | Reid: 14 months’ detention, pending appeals and reversals, made categorical detention unreasonable; merits bond hearing | Government: No unreasonable delay; Demore allows months of detention and appeals justify continued custody | Court: Affirmed—Reid’s detention unreasonable under individualized factors; bond hearing required and he was released on bond |
| Validity/scope of district court’s class certification and relief (procedural protections at bond hearings) | Class: all detained >6 months without a bond hearing; sought class-wide bond hearings and enhanced procedural protections | Government: challenges statutory and constitutional basis for class remedy; opposes six-month rule | Court: Vacated class judgment because it depended on six-month rule; remanded for reconsideration of certification; declined to resolve class-wide procedural‑protections issues now |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (Sup. Ct.) (upheld categorical detention under §1226(c) for the brief period necessary for removal proceedings)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (Sup. Ct.) (read an implicit reasonableness limit into post-removal detention and adopted a six-month presumption in that context)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.) (adopted case-by-case reasonableness review for §1226(c) detention)
- Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir.) (rejected bright-line rule; reasonableness is fact-dependent)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (adopted six-month presumption requiring bond hearings for §1226(c) detainees)
- Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir.) (adopted six-month bright-line rule for §1226(c) detainees)