On May 16, 2007, an immigration detainee who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing while in removal proceedings petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The plaintiff claimed that, without a bond hearing, detention over six months violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the statutory requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Represented by private counsel, the ACLU of Southern California, and the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief, as well as a court order requiring that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provide him with an individual hearing before an immigration judge at which DHS would bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that prolonged detention was warranted. The case was assigned to Judge Virginia A. Phillips and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.

On May 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended petition. On June 25, the plaintiff moved for class certification, seeking to certify a class of "all people who (1) are or will be detained for longer than six months pursuant to the general immigration detention statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including judicial review, (2) are not detained pursuant to one of the national security detention statutes, and (3) have not been afforded a hearing to determine whether their prolonged detention is justified."

On August 8, 2007, the case was reassigned to Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. and referred to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block.

On March 19, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for class certification without explanation. The plaintiffs then appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals (Judge Betty Fletcher) reversed the District Court's decision, stating that the defendants failed to provide any valid reason for denying class certification. 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2009).

Subsequently, Judge Hatter certified the class on April 5, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs petitioned the District Court to certify subclasses determined by the specific INA section that authorized the class member's detention. These subclasses were certified by Judge Hatter on March 8, 2011.

On November 22, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On January 27, 2011, Judge Hatter denied this motion, finding that the INA can be interpreted to require a bond hearing after a certain amount of time to avoid constitutional concerns. 2011 WL 13180220 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

On April 16, 2012, this case was consolidated with Ngaywa v. Holder (11-cv-01287) (the docket sheet is included in this case record, but the complaint is under seal and therefore unavailable).

On June 25, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to begin providing members of the class with bond hearings. Judge Hatter granted this motion on September 13, 2012, requiring the defendants to identify all members of the subclasses according to INA sections 1225(b) and 1226(c), and to provide bond hearings in front of an immigration judge. 2012 WL 7653016 (C.D. Cal. 2012). The defendants moved for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction, which Judge Hatter denied on September 28, 2012. The defendants then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's denial of the emergency stay on April 16, 2013 (Judge Kim Wardlaw). 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).

In February and March of 2013, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. On August 6, 2013, Judge Hatter granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling all class members were entitled to a bond hearing by their 181st day of detention. The order permanently enjoined the defendants, requiring them to provide at least seven-day notice of an individual's hearing, hold a bond hearing for all class members who have been detained for more than 6 months within 30 days of the order, and submit a status report within 60 days describing all steps taken to timely identify all current and future class members to ensure that they would receive a proper bond hearing.

The defendants appealed the summary judgment and injunction to the Ninth Circuit on September 30, 2013. On October 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion largely affirming the injunction. They reversed and remanded to the District Court, requiring the Court to exclude non-citizens who had been ordered removed from the injunction as they were not members of the certified class (non-citizens detained pending removal proceedings).

The defendants appealed, and on June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On July 20, 2016, both parties issued a Joint Status Report. According to the report, the parties continued to negotiate on a proposed draft of a modified permanent injunction order but reached an impasse on a number of issues. However, the parties agreed to defer briefing pending the Supreme Court's decision in this case, which was scheduled for argument during the October 2016 Term. The parties would submit a joint status report within 30 days of the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 30, 2016. After the oral argument, the Court asked for further briefing on the constitutionality of the detention of immigrants.

On June 29, 2017, the parties issued a Joint Status Report. According to the report, on June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order setting this case for re-argument in the October 2017 Term. As a result, the parties submitted that no further action was required by the Court at that time.

The Supreme Court heard reargument on October 3, 2017.

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in this case. 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018). The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226(a), and 1226(c) required bond hearings after six months of immigration detention as a matter of statutory construction. The Supreme Court declined to decide the constitutional claims in the first instance and remanded the case for further consideration of those claims. On remand, the Supreme Court directed the Ninth Circuit to first "reexamine whether respondents could continue litigating their claims as a class" in light of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U. S. 338 (2011), which created a higher standard for class certification.

The parties filed a Joint Status Report on March 5, 2018, agreeing that in light of the Supreme Court decision, the District Court did not need to take any action at this time. The mandate would be issued no sooner than March 26, 2018. At that point, the Ninth Circuit would determine whether any of the remaining issues required further action by this Court. In the meantime, the parties agreed that the permanent injunction would remain in place in the Central District of California until it was vacated by some further action by this Court or the Ninth Circuit.

On November 19, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, remanding the case back to the District Court for consideration of the plaintiffs' constitutional arguments in the first instance. The Court also remanded the issue of reexamining class certification to the District Court. The Court did find that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and declined to vacate the permanent injunction pending the District Court's consideration of these issues. 909 F.3d 252.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2019. The plaintiffs added a new plaintiff, reasserted a statutory claim that had not been appealed previously, and added an Eighth Amendment claim. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 22.

On November 7, 2019, the District Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the newly added plaintiff and the revived statutory claim, but denying it with respect to the new Eighth Amendment Claim. 2019 WL 7840673. On November 18, the plaintiffs moved for clarification or reconsideration of that order. The District Court later clarified that the permanent injunction remained in place.

On November 27, 2019, the defendants moved to vacate the injunction and decertify the plaintiff class. On March 9, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and issued an order amending the order from November 7, 2019. The amended order added that the Ninth Circuit had left the permanent injunction in place when it remanded the case and removed mention of the Supreme Court implicitly vacating the permanent injunction. On April 7, 2020, the defendants moved to reconsider the order. On May 28, 2020, the court denied the motion, denying both the motion to vacate the injunction and the motion to decertify the plaintiff class.

The defendants appealed the district court's May 28 order to the Ninth Circuit on July 27, 2020. In the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Subsequently, on October 28, the Ninth Circuit denied this motion and the appeal proceeded.

The case is ongoing.

Dan Osher - 08/10/2013
Virginia Weeks - 11/02/2016
Joanna Kuzdra - 03/15/2018
Sam Kulhanek - 03/17/2020
Lauren Yu - 11/02/2020


compress summary