On May 16, 2007, immigration detainees who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing while adjudication of their removal decisions was in process, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The plaintiffs 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), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. They sought a court order requiring that DHS provide individual hearings before an immigration judge at which DHS would bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that prolonged detention was warranted, and a declaration that failure to provide such a hearing was a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the statutory requirements of the INA.

The plaintiffs sought 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 March 19, 2008, the District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. denied the 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 plaintiffs entered a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On January 27, 2011, Judge Hatter denied this motion.

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 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 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), that immigration judges must consider the length of detention, and that immigration judges must provide bond hearings every month.

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 Statues 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 , 564 U. S. 338 (2011), which created a higher standard for class certification.

The parties agreed that this 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.

The case is ongoing.

Dan Osher - 08/10/2013
Virginia Weeks - 11/02/2016
Joanna Kuzdra - 03/15/2018


compress summary