Reid v. Donelan
17 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2021Background
- This is a Rule 23(b)(2) class action by noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for more than six months without a bond or individualized reasonableness hearing.
- The district court originally read a six-month bright-line hearing requirement into § 1226(c), ordered hearings, and granted class relief; this Court reversed the bright-line rule but affirmed relief for the named plaintiff.
- The Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez held § 1226(c) does not statutorily require six‑month bond hearings, and left open constitutional challenges to prolonged detention.
- On remand the district court re-certified a class under a constitutional theory, rejected an automatic six‑month rule but issued classwide declaratory and injunctive relief (including a one‑year trigger and specific hearing procedures/burdens).
- The First Circuit panel (majority) holds there is no per se constitutional right to a bond or reasonableness hearing at six months for § 1226(c) detainees, vacates the district court’s classwide declaratory/injunctive orders as advisory (lack of Article III jurisdiction/Rule 23(b)(2) cohesion), and remands for entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Due Process Clause requires an automatic bond/reasonableness hearing for all § 1226(c) detainees after six months | Six months of unreviewed detention is a constitutional tipping point; detainees are entitled to a hearing (or at least a prompt screening) | Demore and Jennings show § 1226(c) detainees need not get an automatic six‑month hearing; any reasonableness inquiry must be individualized | Rejected per se six‑month rule; Due Process imposes a reasonableness limitation but timing and need for a hearing depend on individual circumstances; no categorical six‑month entitlement |
| Whether the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause requires an automatic hearing within six months | Excessive bail prohibition includes a categorical right to timely opportunity for release | Excessive Bail has not been interpreted to create a time‑specific right to a bond hearing when Due Process does not | Rejected: plaintiffs pointed to no authority requiring a categorical Eighth Amendment right to a six‑month hearing; not a basis to override Due Process analysis |
| Whether the district court could issue classwide declaratory and injunctive relief specifying a one‑year rule, burdens, and procedures | Classwide relief appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because common constitutional question affects all members | Orders are advisory, untethered to a live controversy for many class members; lack class cohesion for individualized remedies | Vacated: declaratory/injunctive relief beyond rejecting a per se six‑month rule was advisory and exceeded jurisdiction; class lacked cohesiveness for such individualized remedies under Rule 23(b)(2) |
| Jurisdiction/mootness/standing to enter the procedural rules | Class status and live controversy justified court action; named representatives adequate | Many named representatives released or deported; government contends lack of imminent detention makes relief advisory | Court proceeded to merits on common question but concluded later that broader remedial orders lacked Article III jurisdiction/standing and must be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018) (statutory construction: § 1226(c) does not require six‑month bond hearings; declined to decide constitutional limits)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (upheld mandatory detention under § 1226(c) in facial challenge; emphasized brief duration in reasoning)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (addressed post‑removal detention; recognized six months as a relevant benchmark for reasonableness)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (articulated three‑factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- Reid v. Donelan, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016) (prior First Circuit panel: rejected bright‑line six‑month statutory rule but recognized an implicit reasonableness limitation and affirmed individualized relief for the named plaintiff)
- Hernandez‑Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) (applied Mathews balancing to allocation of burden at immigration bond hearings)