391 F. Supp. 3d 255
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Andrew Yearwood, a native of St. Vincent, was subject to a final order of removal after immigration proceedings and was detained by ICE; he was removed to St. Vincent on May 22, 2019.
- Yearwood has serious cardiac conditions (prior MI and ongoing cardiology care) and had intermittent medication changes and emergency care while detained; his counsel arranged a specialist visit for May 23, 2019 that ICE had approved before removal.
- On May 22, 2019 Yearwood was awakened and transported to JFK, had limited phone access, and was placed on a flight despite counsel emailing authorities and attaching a medical letter opposing air travel; he experienced chest pain in flight and was hospitalized on arrival in St. Vincent.
- Yearwood filed a habeas petition seeking return to the U.S., medical evaluation in St. Vincent by U.S. physicians, medically approved return transport, injunctions against detention or re-removal pending appeal, and declarations that ICE violated the Fifth Amendment and the APA.
- Government opposed on jurisdictional and merits grounds: argued habeas was improper relief because returning Yearwood would not redress past harms, the REAL ID Act (8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)) bars district-court review of removal execution, and the facts did not meet the outrageousness standard to save jurisdiction under the Suspension Clause.
- The Court denied the petition and preliminary injunction, concluding habeas relief would not redress alleged injuries, §1252(g) bars the requested relief, the case was not like Ragbir, and Yearwood failed to show entitlement to injunctive relief or discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas is the proper vehicle and whether returning Yearwood would redress his injuries | Habeas can secure injunctive relief returning him to U.S. and prevent detention to obtain medical care | Habeas is improper because returning him would not cure past procedural or medical harms and could result in re-removal | Court: Habeas is not appropriate; requested relief would not redress alleged harms |
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction over claims challenging execution/manner of removal | Yearwood framed claims as challenge to removal process, not the removal order itself | §1252(g) strips district courts of jurisdiction over claims arising from decisions/actions to execute removal orders; relief requested would undo removal | Court: §1252(g) bars the requested equitable relief because it effectively challenges the final removal order |
| Whether the Suspension Clause (habeas preservation) saves jurisdiction here | Suspension Clause preserves habeas review where no adequate substitute exists; Yearwood says he lacks remedy | Government says statutory bar is constitutional here because petitioner cannot show cognizable habeas claim | Court: No Suspension Clause problem — petitioner failed to show habeas would redress injuries and facts do not meet the "outrageousness" standard from Ragbir |
| Whether preliminary injunction and discovery are warranted | Seeks urgent medical- and return-related relief; discovery to support claims | No likelihood of success on merits; irreparable harm and balance of equities not met | Court: Denied preliminary injunction and discovery as moot/unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas historically is to secure release from illegal custody and is not a vehicle for damages claims)
- I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (Suspension Clause and review availability principles)
- Ragbir v. Roman, 923 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (extraordinary "outrageousness" can overcome §1252(g) bar)
- Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional inquiry focuses on substance of relief sought)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (standards for extraordinary conduct in immigration context)
- United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2007) (case-or-controversy Article III redressability requirement)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard)