Filed Date: June 15, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case concerns a habeas petition and the due process rights of detained Iraqi Americans facing deportation to Iraq. Petitioners in this class action/habeas petition were Iraqi nationals, including many Chaldean Christians, who had resided in the United States for many years. They had been subject to final orders of removal for years, but the U.S. government permitted them to reside in the community under orders of supervision. After the Trump Administration negotiated with Iraq in early 2017, Iraq agreed to accept some repatriation. The federal government arrested about two hundred individuals starting on June 11, 2017. They faced imminent removal to Iraq.
On June 15, 2017, the petitioners filed this class action habeas petition in response. Represented by the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU National Immigrant Rights Project, and other counsel, they alleged that their removal into dangerous circumstances in Iraq would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and that removing them without giving them a chance to assert defenses under the INA and CAT would violate the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and assigned to Judge Mark Goldsmith.
The same they filed the habeas petition, the petitioners sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or stay of removal, to ensure that they would not be deported before the court had a chance to adjudicate the case. After a hearing on June 21, 2017, the court granted a 14-day emergency stay of removal pending further consideration of the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. 2017 WL 2684477.
On June 24, 2017, the petitioners filed a complaint and amended habeas petition. The amended complaint sued two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The petitioners sought class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The petitioners (now plaintiffs) also moved to expand the emergency stay to cover a nationwide class of Iraqi nationals facing imminent removal to Iraq. The court granted the motion on June 26, 2017, staying removal of "all Iraqi nationals in the United States with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested and detained by ICE as a result of Iraq’s recent decision to issue travel documents to facilitate U.S. removal." 2017 WL 2806144. The stay remained in effect for 14 days, until July 10, 2017.
On June 29, 2017, the plaintiffs moved to extend the 14-day stay until resolution of the forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 6, 2017, Judge Goldsmith extended the stay until July 24, 2017. The court also ruled on July 11, 2017 that it had jurisdiction over the matter (despite Congressional intent to the contrary) and confirmed that the stay would remain in effect. Judge Goldsmith wrote:
This Court concludes that to enforce the Congressional mandate that district courts lack jurisdiction — despite the compelling context of this case — would expose Petitioners to the substantiated risk of death, torture, or other grave persecution before their legal claims can be tested in a court. That would effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which the Constitution prohibits.
258 F. Supp. 3d 828.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on July 17, 2017. Current and former U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs on July 19, 2017.
On July 24, 2017, the court entered the plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction. The injunction stayed the enforcement of final orders of removal “directed to any and all Iraqi nationals in the United States who had final orders of removal on June 24, 2017, and who have been, or will be, detained for removal by ICE.” The court explained that the stay of removal would last for each class member until they completed adjudication of a motion to reopen through the immigration courts. If the class member lost in the immigration courts, the stay would last until the U.S. Courts of Appeals denied an individual stay of removal. The motions to reopen were due, the court said, within 90 days after the government provided each class member with their immigration file. If a class member did not appeal or move to reopen, the stay of removal would expire. 261 F. Supp. 3d 820. On September 22, 2017, the government appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Meanwhile in the district court, various administrative matters proceeded while the appeal was pending.
The plaintiffs amended the complaint on October 13, 2017, raising claims that the class's prolonged detention violated the Due Process Clause and the INA. The amended complaint also added the Attorney General of the United States as a defendant. On November 1, 2017, the government moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
On November 7, 2017, the plaintiffs sought a second preliminary injunction concerning the new detention claims, and filed an amended motion for class certification. After a hearing on December 20, 2017, Judge Goldsmith partially granted the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification on January 2, 2018. The court held that any detainee who had spent more than 6 months in detention—nearly all of them—was entitled to release 30 days later, unless an immigration judge found by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing that the detainee posed a flight or public safety risk. 285 F. Supp. 3d 997.
The government appealed on February 28, 2018, and the Sixth Circuit consolidated that second appeal with the prior one. The Sixth Circuit heard oral argument on April 25, 2018.
Meanwhile, the district court decided many minor issues. The court decided that the regulatory process for governmental immigration bond appeals was unlawful because (1) it allowed the government to unilaterally extend prolonged detention, and (2) the process by which the government could obtain a stay of bond release was standardless and deprived the detainee of the opportunity to be heard in a timely manner. 2018 WL 1905074.
On June 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion. They sought to remedy alleged coercion by the government, which was trying to obtain detainees’ "voluntary" agreements to be deported. On June 20, 2018, the court ordered the government to cease any threatening or coercive communications with class members, provide seven-day notice to class counsel of any consular interviews, and permit and facilitate communication between the class and class counsel. Class counsel argued that the government failed to comply with this order because the government did not notify detainees of their right to communicate with class counsel at a specific staging facility. The plaintiffs also argued that class members suffered mistreatment at the Calhoun County Jail because of their involvement in this case.
On August 22, 2018, Judge Goldsmith held that the court’s June 20 order did not require the government to provide notice of consular interviews at temporary staging facilities. However, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of mistreatment substantiated. Judge Goldsmith ordered the government to provide class counsel with the names of detainees at the Calhoun County Jail who had faced administrative or disciplinary sanctions. 2018 WL 11361004.
On September 24, 2018, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Goldsmith also certified the primary class: “All Iraqi nationals in the United States who had final orders of removal at any point between March 1, 2017 and June 24, 2017 and who have been, or will be, detained for removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 342 F. Supp. 3d 751.
The plaintiffs moved for a third preliminary injunction on November 1, 2018, arguing that the detainees in the subclass who had been held longer than six months were entitled to immediate release from detention because there was not a significant likelihood of their removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The plaintiffs argued that Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), made prolonged detention unlawful under those circumstances.
Judge Goldsmith entered the third preliminary injunction on November 20, 2018, mandating the release of all detainees who had been held longer than six months under orders of supervision. 349 F. Supp. 3d 665. The court ordered the releases to take place before December 20, 2018. All but a handful of the detainees were released by that date. On January 18, 2019, the government appealed.
Also on December 20, 2018, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s first two preliminary injunctions that halted removal and ordered bond hearings. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Alice M. Batchelder, Jeffrey S. Sutton, and Helene N. White. Writing for the panel, Judge Batchelder held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunctions. First, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the injunction about removal because the INA limited the enforcement of removal orders to the executive branch, and shielded them from judicial review. Further, the court held that this did not violate the constitutional clause preventing suspension of habeas corpus, as seeking to not be removed from the country is not a standard habeas claim, and even if it were there were sufficient alternate methods of challenging removal. As to the detention and bond hearings, the court held that the district court did have jurisdiction to hear that issue, but that under the INA district courts lack the jurisdiction to enter classwide injunctions against the statute’s provisions. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the removal-based claims. Judge White dissented, arguing that protection against removal fell within the scope of habeas, and that the INA doesn’t prevent classwide declaratory judgments or individual injunctions. 912 F.3d 869.
On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc. They argued that the INA did not strip the court of jurisdiction, and that such a broad reading would create a circuit split and intra-circuit conflict. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition and lifted the stay of removal on April 2, 2019. Judge White dissented from the denial of rehearing. 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9708. However, the Sixth Circuit’s vacatur of the bond order did not lead to re-detention because the third preliminary injunction (the release order) still protected those released on bond.
As the third appeal remained pending, the district court stayed the case on March 12, 2019, pending resolution of that appeal. Judge Goldsmith clarified that the court would continue to supervise compliance with court orders during the stay; the release order thus remained in effect. However, Judge Goldsmith set up a process by which the government could seek to re-detain individuals whom ICE believed were close to removal. The court granted re-detention for several of these individuals. It seemed that Iraq had begun to allow a few removals of class members. In fact, one such class member, Jimmy Aldaoud, died in Iraq shortly after his repatriation there.
On August 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. They sought review of the Sixth Circuit’s December 20, 2018 ruling. 2019 WL 4235516. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on July 2, 2020. 141 S. Ct. 188.
On January 3, 2020, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s third preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The now-vacated order had required the government to release all primary subclass members after six months in detention. Writing for the panel, Judge Sutton held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter this class-wide injunction because the INA stripped all courts other than the Supreme Court of “jurisdiction to enjoin or restrain the operation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232 on a class-wide basis.” Judge Sutton declined to extend Zadvydas to this case, as Zadvydas concerned a different INA provision than the provisions at issue here. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the district court should not have extended the Zadvydas standard beyond the specific provision at issue in that case. Judge White wrote a concurrence that agreed with the decision to vacate the class-wide preliminary injunction based on the precedent of the earlier opinion in this case, but argued that Zadvydas should apply to this case. 946 F.3d 875. The plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc on February 18, 2020, which the Sixth Circuit denied on April 15, 2020.
On February 13, 2020, Judge Goldsmith administratively closed the case pending resolution of the appeals. The court reasoned that the Sixth Circuit had yet to issue an operative ruling, and that such a ruling would eventually impact further proceedings. While the case remained administratively closed for the time being, the district court would continue to supervise and maintain the status quo of the third preliminary injunction until the Sixth Circuit issued a mandate. On April 23, 2020, the Sixth Circuit issued a mandate vacating the third preliminary injunction.
On November 25, 2020, one of the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the district court, asking to be immediately removed to Iraq after Louisiana detained him on criminal charges. Judge Goldsmith denied the motion on December 23, 2020, holding that the requested relief was so different that it shouldn’t be filed in this case. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration on December 24, 2020. The court declined to reconsider the ruling on January 25, 2021. 2021 WL 243139.
After the election and inauguration of President Joe Biden, Judge Goldsmith scheduled a status conference. On March 3, 2021, the parties jointly requested an adjournment because of DHS’s plans to publish new enforcement guidelines; the court granted the request on March 4, 2021.
DHS issued new civil immigration enforcement guidelines on September 30, 2021. In light of the new guidelines, the parties entered settlement talks supervised by Magistrate Judge David Grand in November 2021.
Settlement negotiations continued throughout 2022 and 2023, with periodic docket entries noting the parties’ substantial progress. On December 14, 2023, the court directed the defendants to attempt to obtain any final government approvals of settlement terms by January 26, 2024.
On May 13, 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion for approval of class settlement. The settlement separated Class Members into two categories. Category I individuals were individuals who posed a threat to national security or public safety. Category II individuals were Class Members who did not meet these standards. Based on the Class Member’s category, ICE had conditions placed upon its power to detain an individual for violating an order of supervision and its responsibilities during the removal process. For Category I individuals, ICE may detain them for a violation of an Order of Supervision, only for the period necessary to address the violation of the Order of Supervision if ICE so chooses, and in no event longer than fourteen days. Moreover, for Category I individuals scheduled for removal, ICE must inform them via written notice that they have 90 days before they will be returned to Iraq. During that period, ICE may not remove them unless the Class Member violates the Order of Supervision or there is credible evidence that the individual will engage in “violent crime or other very serious criminal activity” during that time. For Category II individuals, ICE may detain them for a violation of an Order of Supervision, only for the time necessary to process the individual into an appropriate alternative to detention program, which shall be less than 24 hours except under “highly unusual circumstances” (such as a medical emergency). Moreover, for Category II individuals scheduled for removal, ICE must provide them with a 90 day notice, and if, after the expiration of those 90 days, the individual did not obtain travel documents and depart from the US, ICE may require the individual to report for a consular interview. The government agreed to pay Special Master’s fees and other relief outlined in the agreement, and the petitioners agreed to forego any claim for attorney's fees or monetary sanctions.
The settlement specified that the Court would retain jurisdiction over the case three years from the agreement's effective date, to enforce Agreement terms and conditions.
On June 4, 2024, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, directing notice to the class, and setting a fairness hearing for July 31, 2024. The court approved the settlement on August 2, 2024, and appointed Anil Kalhan as the Special Master. On September 26, 2024, the Special Master issued his first report on a motion for release, ordering the release of a class member.
The enforcement period is scheduled to continue until August 2027.
Summary Authors
Alexandra Gilewicz (3/14/2019)
Aaron Gurley (3/16/2020)
Rachel Kreager (4/7/2021)
Sophia Acker (4/15/2024)
Madilynn O'Hara (6/30/2024)
Clearinghouse (1/23/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6074945/parties/hamama-v-adducci/
Alsterberg, Cara Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (District of Columbia)
Aceves, William (California)
Aladily, Habib (Michigan)
Al-Kurdi, Jafar Mushin (Michigan)
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (Michigan)
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York)
Bechtold, Elisabeth V. (New Mexico)
Johnson, David Brian (Michigan)
Knight, Christopher (Michigan)
Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)
Love, Kristin Greer (New Mexico)
Richards, Wendolyn Wrosch (Michigan)
Sanchez, Maria Martinez (New Mexico)
Schlanger, Margo J. (Michigan)
Alsterberg, Cara Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (District of Columbia)
Celone, Michael Anthony (District of Columbia)
Darrow, Joseph A. (District of Columbia)
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia)
Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia)
Murley, Nicole N. (District of Columbia)
Parascandola, Christina B. (District of Columbia)
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Silvis, William C. (District of Columbia)
Stewart, Scott Grant (District of Columbia)
Al-Kurdi, Jafar Mushin (Michigan)
Barbaree, Catherine J. (Texas)
Dewey, Frederick R. (Michigan)
Harper, Keith M. (District of Columbia)
Kritikos, Alexander (Massachusetts)
Lintemuth, Elisa J. (Michigan)
Sohbatian, Nareeneh (California)
Sproull, Glenn Eric (Michigan)
Wadood, Ramis Jamal (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6074945/hamama-v-adducci/
Last updated May 3, 2025, 9:10 p.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 15, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All Iraqi nationals in the United States who had final orders of removal at any point between March 1, 2017 and June 24, 2017 and who have been, or will be, detained for removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
U.S. Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Order Duration: 2024 - 2027
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: