Bent v. Barr

Background

Claude Bent, a 58-year-old Jamaican national, had been held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility since July 2016 while his removal proceedings continued. He sought release because of the COVID-19 pandemic and his particular health risks. The court had granted a temporary restraining order on April 9, 2020, ordering his immediate release subject to conditions and directing the respondents to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Standing and authority to grant relief

The respondents argued that Bent lacked constitutional standing because his alleged injury was speculative and could not be remedied by the court. The court rejected that argument, noting that a medical provider and a GEO officer at Mesa Verde had tested positive for COVID-19. The court concluded that Bent’s alleged injury was actual or imminent and likely could be addressed by a favorable decision.

The respondents also argued that release was not an available remedy because Bent was challenging detention conditions. The court rejected that position. It concluded that the limits discussed in Ninth Circuit precedent concerned state prisoners and did not prevent an immigration detainee from seeking relief through a petition challenging the legality of confinement. The court also concluded that a civil-rights claim against individual officers was not clearly available for Bent’s challenge to a nationwide detention policy, making a petition challenging confinement or injunctive relief an appropriate way to seek a remedy.

The respondents further argued that Bent was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The court disagreed, explaining that a statute could not eliminate constitutional protections and that a court may order release when detention violates constitutional rights.

Preliminary injunction

A preliminary injunction is an order providing temporary relief before the case is finally resolved. The court applied the factors requiring a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

The court found that Bent had raised serious questions about whether his continued detention during the pandemic posed risks excessive in relation to the government’s legitimate objectives. Although Mesa Verde had increased sanitation, provided soap and masks, required protective equipment for medical staff, and reduced the population in some dormitories, the court found that two Mesa Verde staff members had tested positive for COVID-19. It also reasoned that improvements at the facility were partly the result of court-ordered releases and that re-detaining people could undermine social distancing. The court therefore found that Bent had shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court found likely irreparable harm because Bent’s age and underlying health conditions made him especially vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19, and because the virus had been detected at Mesa Verde. The court also relied on its earlier finding that Bent did not currently pose a danger to society or a flight risk. Bent had been out of detention for almost three months and had submitted declarations with his custodian stating that he was complying with the release terms. The court found that the balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction.

Requested release-condition changes

The respondents asked the court to require Bent to provide additional information before changing his residence, to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain him immediately without advance notice to the court under specified circumstances, and to require him to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement within 24 hours after applicable shelter-in-place orders ended. The court found the first proposed condition unnecessary, found insufficient cause for the second, and declined to impose the third at that time. The court stated that the respondents could seek to modify or lift the injunction by showing that conditions had changed.

Amendment of the petition

The court granted Bent leave to amend his petition challenging detention. His original petition concerned whether he was entitled to another bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process, and the court had previously denied that petition and the related temporary restraining order. The court allowed Bent to add a claim that continued detention during the COVID-19 pandemic violated substantive due process, meaning constitutional protection against government detention that is fundamentally unjustified.

Disposition

The court found Bent entitled to a preliminary injunction. The existing release order remained effective until further order of the court, and Bent was required to file an amended petition by July 20, 2020. The court also granted him leave to amend his petition.