Bent v. Barr

Background

Claude Bent, a foreign national, was detained at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility in Kern County, California. The opinion states that Bent was born in Jamaica, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident at age 18, and was 58 years old. In 2006, he was convicted in California state court of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder and received a sentence of just over thirteen years. After completing that sentence, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and had remained in custody since July 2016.

The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings in July 2016, asserting that Bent’s attempted-murder conviction was an aggravated felony that made him deportable. Those proceedings were ongoing and had involved appeals to and remands from the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Ninth Circuit.

Bent moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order, seeking immediate release because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He said that overcrowding and inadequate cleaning supplies at Mesa Verde exposed him to an unreasonable risk. He also asserted that he was especially vulnerable because he had asthma, hypertension, and prediabetes. The respondents opposed the motion.

Habeas jurisdiction

The respondents argued that Bent could not challenge the conditions of his confinement through a habeas petition seeking immediate release. The court explained that habeas relief is available when a person is held in violation of federal law or the Constitution. Although ordinary conditions-of-confinement claims generally cannot be brought through habeas, the court distinguished Bent’s claim: he challenged the validity of his continued detention during the pandemic, asserting that it violated his substantive due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The court held that it had habeas jurisdiction over claims related to Bent’s detention. It also rejected the argument that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) absolutely barred an order for release based on a due-process violation.

Standing

Standing is the requirement that a person show a concrete or imminent injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that the requested relief would remedy the injury. The respondents argued that Bent’s injury was speculative because Mesa Verde had no confirmed COVID-19 cases and because release might not make him safer.

The court found that Bent had standing. It relied on the rapid spread of COVID-19, the ability of people without symptoms to transmit the virus, confirmed cases in ICE facilities in several states, and confirmed cases in Kern County. The court concluded that waiting for a confirmed case at Mesa Verde could make effective relief impossible. It also found that release could reduce Bent’s asserted risk because detention facilities create particular dangers of exposure and transmission.

Temporary restraining order

A temporary restraining order is emergency injunctive relief. The court applied the requirements used for preliminary injunctions: the applicant must show likely success or serious legal questions, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach, a strong showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another.

The court held that Bent raised serious questions about whether continued detention at Mesa Verde during the pandemic imposed risks excessive in relation to the government’s legitimate objectives. Mesa Verde housed 312 detainees, including approximately 84 people in each of three male dormitory units. The respondents said they had increased sanitation and provided supplies, but the court found that they did not show that recommended social distancing could be implemented, that special measures protected people at heightened risk, or that screening limited to fevers could detect asymptomatic infections. The court also considered Bent’s assertions that detainees lacked adequate access to sanitizer, liquid soap, and bleach, and that dormitories were cleaned by detainees.

The court found likely irreparable harm. It reasoned that unconstitutional detention itself can constitute irreparable injury and that Bent’s asthma, hypertension, and prediabetes placed him at heightened risk from COVID-19. The court also weighed the government’s interests in ensuring Bent’s appearance in removal proceedings and protecting the community. It acknowledged that Bent had serious prior convictions but found no evidence that he currently posed a danger to the community, including no concerns about his behavior during the previous fourteen years of incarceration or detention.

Disposition and release conditions

The court conditionally granted Bent’s temporary restraining order. It did not immediately order his release. Instead, Bent was required to file sworn declarations by April 13, 2020, describing a concrete release proposal, including transportation to Washington, D.C., conditions addressing flight risk during transportation, and the address where he would reside. After reviewing the proposal, the court would determine whether it was satisfactory and would issue a release order if appropriate.

The court identified anticipated conditions including residence and sheltering in place at his brother’s home, transportation under conditions addressing flight risk, home detention except for specified purposes, and compliance with federal, state, and local law. The respondents were ordered to show cause by April 30, 2020, why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and Bent was ordered to respond by May 14, 2020.