Doe v. Barr

Background

John Doe, a citizen of Haiti and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was in removal proceedings based on a California second-degree robbery conviction. He had completed his state sentence but remained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Yuba County Jail beginning April 15, 2019. He had not received a bond hearing. The immigration judge had denied his applications for adjustment of status and protection under the Convention Against Torture and had ordered him removed to Haiti. Doe appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Doe had chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and latent tuberculosis. He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and the jail’s conditions— including crowded sleeping arrangements, the inability to maintain social distancing, and limited access to soap, masks, and cleaning supplies—created a serious risk to his health. He sought release under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person to challenge unlawful detention, or alternatively a bond hearing. He also moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent immediate harm before a preliminary-injunction hearing.

The Government’s Objections

The government argued that Doe could not challenge his conditions of confinement through a § 2241 petition seeking release, that he had not exhausted administrative remedies, and that his claimed injury was speculative because there were no suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases at Yuba County Jail as of April 9, 2020. The court rejected these arguments. It held that a § 2241 petition could address Doe’s conditions-of-confinement claims. It also held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was a prudential requirement rather than a jurisdictional one and waived that requirement because administrative relief was inadequate or ineffective in the circumstances, Doe faced continuing harm, and his bond-hearing claim was based on the Fifth Amendment.

The court further held that Doe had standing because the risk of COVID-19 infection in a crowded detention setting was not speculative, even without a confirmed case at that facility.

Temporary-Restraining-Order Analysis

A temporary restraining order requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, a balance of hardships favoring the applicant, and consistency with the public interest. The court found that Doe satisfied all four requirements.

For the substantive due-process claim, the court found that Doe had at least raised a serious question whether his continued detention, given his medical conditions and the jail’s conditions, was excessive in relation to the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring his presence at immigration proceedings. Because Doe was a civil detainee, the Fifth Amendment prohibited conditions that amounted to punishment. The court emphasized the evidence concerning his heightened health risks and his inability to meaningfully use social distancing and recommended hygiene measures at the jail.

For the procedural due-process claim, the court found that Doe was likely to succeed because he had been detained for about a year without a bond hearing. The court applied a three-factor balancing test that considers the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interests. It concluded that Doe’s prolonged detention, the absence of a briefing schedule for his immigration appeal, and the likely delay before a decision favored holding a bond hearing.

The court also found likely irreparable harm from continued detention and exposure to health-threatening conditions. It concluded that the balance of equities and the public interest favored release because release would allow Doe to use social distancing and other health measures while remaining subject to supervision. The court considered his community ties, parole supervision, available community resources, rehabilitation record, low risk of violence identified in a psychological evaluation, and the conditions imposed by the order. The court noted that his underlying crime was serious.

Disposition

The court granted Doe’s motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered his immediate release from custody. Doe had to reside with his wife in Oakland and shelter in place unless otherwise directed by his parole officer. Without further court permission or permission from the parole officer, he could leave home only for medical care, parole meetings, meetings with attorneys, immigration proceedings, or compliance with immigration authorities’ orders. He could not violate federal, state, or local law. The parole officer could impose or modify conditions to permit gainful activity, and the parties had to confer and submit a proposed schedule for a preliminary injunction within two business days. The order granted emergency relief; it did not state that the court had entered a final judgment on the underlying claims.