Case: Rodriguez v. Hayes

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. 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, Plaintiff sought declaratory relief, as well as a court order requiring that the U.S. 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, Plaintiff filed an amended petition. On June 25, 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. Plaintiffs appealed this denial to the U.S. 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 Defendants failed to provide any valid reason for denying class certification. 591 F.3d 1105.

Subsequently, Judge Hatter certified the class on April 5, 2010. On October 15, 2010, Plaintiffs petitioned the district court to certify subclasses determined by the specific INA section that authorized the class member's detention. Judge Hatter certified these subclasses on March 8, 2011. 2011 WL 13294658.

On November 22, 2010, 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.

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, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Defendants to begin providing members of the class with bond hearings. Judge Hatter granted this motion on September 13, 2012, requiring 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. Defendants moved for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction, which Judge Hatter denied on September 28, 2012. 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.

In February and March of 2013, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. On August 6, 2013, Judge Hatter granted Plaintiffs' motion, ruling all class members were entitled to a bond hearing by their 181st day of detention. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135479. Judge Hatter also issued a permanent injunction, which permanently enjoined Defendants and required 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.

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. 804 F.3d 1060. 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). Defendants appealed, and on June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 579 U.S. 917.

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 another 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. 583 U.S. 281. The 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 Court declined to decide the constitutional claims in the first instance and remanded the case for further consideration of those claims. On remand, the 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 another 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. In the meantime, the parties agreed that the permanent injunction would remain in place in the Central District of California until vacated by some further action.

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. 909 F.3d 252. 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.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2019. They added a new plaintiff, reasserted a statutory claim that had not been appealed previously, and added an Eighth Amendment claim. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 22. On November 7, 2019, the district court issued an order granting 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, 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, Defendants moved to vacate the injunction and decertify the plaintiff class. On March 9, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and issued an order amending the order from November 7, 2019. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 263689. 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, 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. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 269848.

Defendants appealed the district court's May 28 order to the Ninth Circuit on July 27, 2020. On October 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum reversing the district court's order and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction. 2021 WL 4871067. 

The case is ongoing as of March 2024 as both parties continue to engage in settlement negotiations.