Reid v. Donelan
22 F. Supp. 3d 84
D. Mass.2014Background
- Reid represents a class of aliens detained under 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) for over six months in Massachusetts without an individualized bail hearing.
- Court had previously held detention beyond six months presumptively unreasonable in Reid I and certified class in Reid II.
- Plaintiff seeks class-wide relief including a permanent injunction and summary judgment; Defendants seek dismissal of the class claims.
- Court relies on due-process authorities to interpret §1226(c) as containing a six-month reasonableness limit—adopted for the class.
- Relief proposed includes applying §1226(a) bail-hearing procedures to all class members and providing proper notice to class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1226(c) include a six‑month reasonableness limit for the class? | Reid argues the six‑month rule applies to the class. | Donelan argues the six‑month limit does not apply to the class. | Yes; six months applies to the class. |
| Is class-wide equitable relief permissible under §1252(f)(1)? | Reid asserts relief is permissible to enforce constitutional rights. | Donelan contends §1252(f)(1) bars class-wide relief. | Yes; §1252(f)(1) does not bar class relief. |
| Is permanent relief appropriate and what form should it take? | Reid seeks a permanent injunction requiring bail determinations under §1226(a). | Donelan argues relief should be limited to §1226(a) protections or denied. | Permanent relief warranted; order requires §1226(a) procedures and individual bail determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourguignon v. MacDonald, 667 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2009) (due process limit on detention length under §1226(c) and six-month reasoning (first applicability to class))
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (six-month rule as practical due‑process limit (bright-line approach))
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (detention after removal order must be reasonably foreseeable; six‑month benchmark)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (recognizes individualized determinations may be required if detention becomes unreasonable)
- Gordon v. Johnson, 300 F.R.D. 31 (D. Mass. 2014) (class-wide equitable relief respects §1252(f)(1) distinctions; remedies limited to correcting misapplication of §1226(c))
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (class‑wide detention relief considerations and burden of proof)
- Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne, 677 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D. Mass. 2010) (recognizes due process constraints on detention)
- Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (classwide declaratory relief available under constitutional framework)