P.L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Background

The plaintiffs included representative detained immigrants identified by initials and three organizations: Brooklyn Defender Services, The Legal Aid Society, and The Bronx Defenders. They sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and several officials in their official capacities. The complaint alleged violations of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.

The dispute involved a June 2018 policy announced by the New York Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Under the policy, detained immigrants would primarily appear in immigration proceedings through videotelephone conferencing rather than in person. The plaintiffs alleged that technology and scheduling problems prevented representative plaintiffs from meaningfully participating in removal proceedings and made it more difficult and costly for the organizational plaintiffs to represent their clients.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after its entry.

Court’s analysis

The plaintiffs argued that the court should reconsider the dismissal as to bond hearings because bond hearings are separate from removal proceedings. The court examined the complaint and found that its requested relief challenged the defendants’ use of videotelephone conferencing for removal proceedings. The complaint mentioned bond hearings only briefly and did not clearly state separate, independent claims challenging the use of that technology at bond hearings. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not pleaded bond-hearing claims that gave the defendants fair notice.

The plaintiffs also argued that the court should reinstate their Administrative Procedure Act claims. They said they were challenging the government’s decision-making process in adopting the videotelephone policy, rather than challenging the policy itself, and that the organizational plaintiffs could not bring that challenge in an immigration appeals proceeding or a petition for review. The court noted that the Supreme Court was expected to address the scope of the jurisdictional restriction at issue in a cited case involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as to the purported bond-hearing claims. It did not decide the motion concerning the Administrative Procedure Act claims; instead, it stayed resolution of that issue until further notice, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the cited case.

Note on the opinion text

The opinion says that the facts were fully set forth in an opinion dated June 21, 2020, although it also states that the dismissal and judgment followed an opinion and order dated June 21, 2019. The current order is dated March 13, 2020, so the reference to June 21, 2020 appears inconsistent within the provided text.