COVID-19 Summary: A class action for emergency release by noncitizens in civil immigration detention in the Bristol County House of Corrections. Judge William Young provisionally certified five sub-classes, reviewed dozens of bail applications, and released several individuals. Then on May 12, he banned further admissions to the facility and ordered universal COVID-19 testing. The defendants moved to reconsider and appealed to the First Circuit. On June 3, the court declined to reconsider the preliminary injunction but modified it to make the testing of staff at the facility voluntary instead of mandatory. The defendant appealed.
On March 27, 2020, a class of civil immigration detainees held in two Massachusetts detention centers (Bristol County House of Corrections and C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center) filed this federal petition and complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights and Yale Law School's Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, the plaintiffs sued the supervisors of their detention center, the acting Director of the Boston Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the acting Deputy Director for ICE. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, injunctive relief asking the court to order the immediate release of all immigration detainees held in their locations. Specifically, they argued that they were at high risk of contracting the highly contagious disease, stating that they were “unaware of any meaningful safety measures” put in place by the facilities. They claimed that this violated their Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights. In addition, they claimed that by exposing the detainees with underlying medical conditions to a heightened risk of COVID-19, the defendants were preventing them from participating in the removal process because of their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs pointed to other instances around the country where detainees and incarcerated individuals had been released in order to promote social distancing and self-isolation, including Los Angeles, New Jersey, Cleveland, Nashville, and San Antonio. The plaintiffs also requested that the court prohibit the placement of new detainees within in the detention centers until public health protocols were implemented.
The same day, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to order either the release of the putative class or the implementation of safety protocols within the detention system. As support for their motions, they included statements and declarations from various impacted individuals and detainees. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all civil immigration detainees held in either the Bristol County House of Corrections or the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center.
The case was originally assigned to Judge Patti B. Saris as connected with another case already before her; however, after Judge Saris determined that the two cases were unconnected, this case was reassigned to Judge William G. Young.
A hearing on the temporary restraining order occurred on April 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020. Judge Young declined to certify the entire class action, but instead “provisionally certified” five individual subclasses based off a chart provided to him by the Bristol County Sheriff’s office: (1) 11 detainees without any previous criminal history who also didn't have any pending charges; (2) detainees with nonviolent charges against them who had underlying medical condition; (3) those with nonviolent crimes who didn't have underlying health conditions; (4) and (5) detainees with serious pending charges against them, 17 with serious convictions. Judge Young also indicated that he might order releases very soon, noting "The numerical evidence seems incontrovertible, that the fewer people that are in the center, the greater the chance for health and safety for the people who remain there,"
as reported by Commonwealth Magazine.
On April 4, Judge Young granted bail to three individuals, and proposed to review petitions for bail at a rate of ten per day. The next day, he released a schedule of the order in which bail applications would be reviewed, starting on April 7 and continuing at a rate of ten per weekday until Monday, April 13, reviewing a total of fifty petitions.
On April 7, Judge Young ordered the release of eight individuals. In the order, he expressed concern that the remaining individuals might not have enough space within the detention facility to socially distance, ordering that to be among the items discussed at a hearing scheduled for April 9.
On April 8, Judge Young granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying as a class all civil immigration detainees still held at the Bristol and Carreiro centers--some 148 detainees. The order noted that the Court was not ready to rule yet on the habeas petition or the preliminary injunction, but was willing to "expeditiously" consider bail petitions. 2020 WL 1703844.
On April 9, fifteen additional detainees were released on bail. Ten more individuals were released on April 10. Judge Young issued an updated list of individuals to be considered for bail the same day, with 49 individuals slated to be released from April 14 to April 20.
On April 14, the defendants filed a motion to stay further releases, which was promptly denied by the Court on April 15. The Court chided the defendants for the request: "Compelling issues of individual, institutional, and community health preclude the luxury of a stay so counsel can 'consider their appellate options.' The motion is denied."
On April 17, Judge Young issued the next schedule of releases pending bail, with 29 individuals scheduled for release from April 21 to April 23.
On May 12, the court granted preliminary relief and ordered that all immigration detainees at the detention center and staff who came into contact with them be tested for COVID-19. The court further ordered that no new immigration detainees be admitted. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83371. On May 18, the court followed up with an order, requiring defendants to furnish their plan for testing staff and detainees. The court noted that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections had implemented testing for all staff and inmates and that "since, under our Constitution, ICE power to lock a person up is limited by its obligation to care for that person, surely ICE can be expected to care for its civil detainees at least as well as Massachusetts cares for its convicted felons."
On May 22, the defendants asked the court to reconsider, arguing that they had not acted with deliberate indifference. They further stated that many of their staff had shown reluctance to COVID-19 testing.
The defendants also appealed to the First Circuit on June 1. This appeal was assigned USCA Case Number 20-1564, and it was later voluntarily dismissed on October 28. On June 22, the plaintiffs cross-appealed, and the case was assigned USCA Case Number 20-1626.
On June 3, a hearing was held regarding the motion for reconsideration. The court requested both parties to report what acceptable population range could be safely held in the facility. The defendants were also ordered to report the names of immigration detainees at a heightened risk of COVID-19, so the court could determine who should be reviewed for potential release. The court also modified the preliminary injunction to make the testing of staff at the facility voluntary, with no adverse effects for staff who declined the test.
In a memorandum dated June 18, the court gave an explanation to its denial of the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction, writing: "just as 'the increased rate of infection' does not itself prove deliberate indifference, the absence of known infections does not disprove deliberate indifference."
On June 30, the court noted that the (1) the population of detainees dropped from 80 detainees when the preliminary injunction was issued and that (2) all detainees, with the exception of a few who refused testing and so were quarantined, have tested negative for COVID-19. The court recognized the risk to public health resulting from transferring new detainees between facilities, including those outside the state. Therefore, the court modified the preliminary injunction to add the following: “New immigration detainees may, upon motion and leave from the Court, be admitted from the criminal wing of the facility, but only if they have (1) tested negative for COVID-19 and remained isolated since their test, (2) been evaluated for underlying medical conditions, and (3) been considered for release by ICE.”
The defendant appealed to the First Circuit on August 3, and the case was assigned USCA Case Number 20-1768.
On January 11, 2021, the judge referred parties to Alternative Dispute Resolution. On February 9, 2021, the judge requested briefing on the impact of the memorandum issued on January 20, 2021, from Acting Secretary Pekoske on Immigration Enforcement Policies, which paused removals for certain non-citizens.
January 20, 2021 Memorandum on Immigration Enforcement Policies.
On April 6, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for settlement and to modify bail conditions, which the court granted the following day; the court set a fairness hearing for May 3.
The Settlement Agreement divided the class members into several groups, those to be released, those to be provided "other relief," and those currently released on bail. The agreement provided that 6 detainees were to be released immediately and that the 32 individuals already on bail would remain released with a removal of curfew, home confinement, or GPS monitoring restrictions. For the members of the class remaining in detention, the agreement allowed them the option to be transferred out of BCHOC to another ICE facility. The court's May 12 order, prohibiting the admission of new detainees, was to remain in place until the final approval of the Settlement Agreement, at which time the preliminary injunction would be dissolved.
This case is ongoing.
Elizabeth Helpling - 04/21/2020
Averyn Lee - 09/24/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/29/2020
Tessa McEvoy - 03/12/2021
Zofia Peach - 04/15/2021
compress summary
