University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Dubon Miranda v. Barr IM-MD-0019
Docket / Court 1:20-cv-01110 ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
Case Summary
This case is about fair hearings for individuals in immigration detention.

On April 30, 2020, the three immigration detainees in Maryland filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s failure to provide fair hearings to people in immigration detention on behalf of ... read more >
This case is about fair hearings for individuals in immigration detention.

On April 30, 2020, the three immigration detainees in Maryland filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s failure to provide fair hearings to people in immigration detention on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland, the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights (CAIR) Coalition, and a public interest organization. The complaint and habeas petition pointed to two flaws in the government's bond hearings that made subsequent detentions a violation of procedural due process and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief that prohibits further detention without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing that places the burden of proof on the government and requires the court to consider ability to pay in setting bond amount. The case was assigned to Judge Catherine Blake.

The complaint alleged first that the government jails noncitizens pending their removal proceedings without being required to demonstrate that such detention was even warranted in the first place, placing the burden of proof on the noncitizen to satisfy an immigration judge (IJ) that they posed no danger or flight risk. Second, the government then conditioned release on payment of a money bond, without any requirement that IJs consider the noncitizen’s financial circumstances when setting a bond amount. As a result, the plaintiffs (and other similarly situated) were detained arbitrarily, either because the government was not required to prove that their imprisonment was in fact necessary, or their bond that was set unnecessarily beyond their financial means. Together, these created a process that violated their procedural due process rights and the INA. The complaint also included the COVID-19 pandemic as an aggravating factor in the case.

On May 5, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, which the court granted on May 29. On May 22, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The purported class was defined as all people who are or will be detained under the INA and had or will have a bond hearing before the immigration court in Baltimore, Maryland. On July 27, the defendants filed an appeal (No. 20-1828) to the Fourth Circuit challenging the preliminary injunction. The defendants submitted a motion to stay proceedings on August 25, which was granted on August 26.

On appeal, there were three issues: (1) whether due process requires the government to bear the burden of justifying a noncitizen’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence at bond hearings under the INA; (2) whether due process requires an IJ to consider a noncitizen’s ability to pay a bond and his suitability for release on alternative conditions of supervision at bond hearings under the INA; and (3) whether the INA barred the class-wide preliminary injunction. The government filed its opening brief on December 4. The plaintiffs have filed three motions for extended time; their response brief is currently due on June 4, 2021.

Meanwhile, back in the district court, Judge Blake denied class certification on December 4, 2020; the parties were briefing the preliminary injunction order's appeal in the Fourth Circuit and the case had been stayed. Judge Blake denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after the conclusion of the appeal.

The case is ongoing.

Rachel Kreager - 03/30/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Excessive bail/fines
Suspension Clause
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Habeas Corpus
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Immigration/Border
Detention - procedures
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Defendant(s) Attorney General
Corrections Bureau Chief
Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Field Office Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
Howard County Detention Center Director
Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
Worcester County Detention Center Warden
Plaintiff Description Three immigration detainees in Maryland
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Affiliates (any)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Denied
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 04/30/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Miranda v. Barr
ACLU
Date: May 29, 2020
By: ACLU
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
D. Md.
12/07/2020
1:20-cv-01110-CCB
IM-MD-0019-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D. Md.
04/30/2020
Class Action Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF# 1]
IM-MD-0019-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Md.
05/29/2020
Memorandum [ECF# 25] (463 F.Supp.3d 632)
IM-MD-0019-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Blake, Catherine C. (D. Md.) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0002 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Appelbaum, Adina Bassim (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Barth, Whittney Layne (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Bireda, Saba (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Cubas, Claudia R (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Horan, Claire Jewell (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Kim, Jenny (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Kumar, Sonia (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Marcuse, Deborah K (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Steiner, Nicholas Taichi (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Vidmar, Melody (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Webbert, Austin (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-0001 | IM-MD-0019-9000
Zhou, Lucy (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cusson, Evelyn Lombardo (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-9000
Imerman, Susan M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-9000
Other Lawyers Telfeyan, Phil (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-MD-0019-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -