COVID-19 Summary: This is a state immigration detention case filed in light of COVID-19, alleging that the close quarters and unsanitary conditions in the detention facilities were unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied to issue a writ of mandate on May 13.

---

The plaintiffs, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Southern California Chapter), filed this petition for writ of mandate on April 24, 2020. They were represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego, and ACLU of Northern California. Respondents were Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The petition identified several people, contemporaneously or formerly, held in ICE detention centers which were not offering proper care with regards to the spread of COVID-19. Petitioners argued that the detention centers continued to house detainees in close quarters and in unsanitary conditions. The petition argued that the State of California's continued transfers of non-citizen detainees to ICE detention centers constituted violations of the Due Process clause of both the U.S. Constitution and California state constitution. Petitioners also argued that the conditions also were a threat to the public in general. Therefore, the petition sought a writ of mandate to prohibit the state from transferring any more detainees to ICE detention centers and an order declaring respondents in violation of the Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the California state constitution. They also asked for attorney's fees and costs.

On April 30, respondents offered their response in opposition. They argued that any responsibility to keep conditions safe for detainees lied with the ICE and the federal government. They also argued that pending federal litigation would provide an adequate remedy and that the petitioners had not identified any duty that respondents had which could be remedied by a writ of mandate.

On May 13 the California Supreme Court issued it's opinion. They denied the writ of mandate, arguing that petitioners failed to establish that respondents had any clear duty. However, they denied the writ without prejudice, so that any party which did have a duty could be brought before the court.

The case is now closed.

Jack Hibbard - 07/13/2020


compress summary