921 F.3d 204
4th Cir.2019Background
- Morales and Raygoza, both noncitizens, were arrested in Virginia and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at ICE's Farmville facility pending removal.
- Raygoza was transferred without prior notice to a Texas facility; Morales feared imminent transfer. Both later obtained bond but alleged ongoing risk of re-detention and transfer.
- Plaintiffs (the two fathers and their children) sued ICE and DHS seeking classwide declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging transfers that separate parents from children violate substantive and procedural due process (a claimed right to "family unity"). Raygoza also sought habeas relief.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)) and for failure to state a claim, arguing no constitutional right to remain detained near family and no protected liberty interest in location.
- The district court rejected the jurisdictional bar but dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding no substantive right to family unity and therefore no procedural-due-process protection; it also denied habeas relief. The plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction to review ICE transfer decisions | Transfers are reviewable; plaintiffs seek constitutional relief | Transfer authority is discretionary and specified (via §1231(g)), so courts lack jurisdiction | No jurisdictional bar: §1231(g) does not explicitly specify transfer discretion for §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to apply |
| Whether detainees have a substantive due process right to "family unity" preventing transfers away from children | Detention transfers that separate parents and children violate substantive due process | No established constitutional right to be detained in a particular location near family | No substantive due process right recognized in this context; courts decline to create one |
| Whether transfers without notice/hearing violate procedural due process | Plaintiffs assert a liberty interest in family unity entitling them to notice and hearing before transfer | No protected liberty interest in detention at a specific location, so no procedural protection | Procedural claim fails because no cognizable liberty interest exists |
| Whether habeas relief is available for alleged unconstitutional transfer | Raygoza sought habeas relief for his transfer from VA to TX | Government argued no reviewable constitutional claim or entitlement to relief | Habeas relief denied on same grounds: no recognized constitutional right violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (describing detention under §1226 authority)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional power limits)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (statutory authority must be explicitly "specified" to preclude review)
- Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 44 F.3d 1251 (implied transfer authority from detention-location statutes)
- Aguilar v. ICE, 510 F.3d 1 (no substantive due process right in similar transfer context)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (caution against new substantive-due-process rights)
- Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732 (risk of subjective judicial policymaking in novel liberty claims)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental rights to rear children)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental control over education)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (discussion of family and marriage in broader liberty context)
- Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (interpreting broad statutory terms and agency discretion)