Rodriguez v. Robbins

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: 04-16-2013
  • Case #: 12-56734
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Wardlaw for the Court; Circuit Judge Gould and District Judge Haddon
  • Full Text Opinion

District court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, which required “the government to identify all class members, detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) … and ‘provide each of them with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with power to grant their release’” was upheld.

The Appellees were non-citizens who had been detained for six months or more under either 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) or 1225(b) without receiving a bond hearing and “determination to justify their continued detentions.” The district court granted the Appellees a preliminary injunction, which required the government to give those “detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) … a bond hearing.’” The Ninth Circuit examined the district court’s preliminary injunction against four requirements: “(1) Appellees’ likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether they have established a likelihood of irreparable harm; (3) the balance of equities; and (4) where the public interest lies.” In Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, the Court ruled that “a bond hearing is required before the government may detain an alien for ‘prolonged’ period” and that a “prolonged detention of an alien without an individualized determination of his dangerousness or flight risk would be constitutionally doubtful.” Using this and other precedents, the panel reasoned that detention under § 1226(c) and § 1225(b) was “limited to a six-month period, subject to a finding of flight risk or dangerousness.” Therefore, the Appellees would likely succeed in their challenge of their detention. Since there was the possibility of a deprivation of constitutional rights, which would constitute irreparable harm, if the preliminary injunction did not provide the Appellees with bond hearings, the panel concluded that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction. Balancing the district court’s order’s lack of harm to the government against the hardship of an unnecessarily prolonged detention, the panel determined that the “balance of equities” favored the Appellees. The panel found that the public interest benefits from ensuring federal statutes are constitutionally implemented is compelling. Since the Appellees satisfied all four requirements, the panel upheld the preliminary injunction. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search