Coronel v. Decker

Background

Josefina Coronel and the other petitioners filed a petition seeking release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and a complaint for injunctive relief. The opinion addresses emergency relief for four petitioners who remained detained: Jose Otero, Jose Madrid, Juan Morocho Sumba, and Miguel Miranda. Three other petitioners had been released after the case began. The court deferred deciding whether the claims of those three petitioners had become moot, meaning no longer presented a live dispute.

The four remaining petitioners had serious medical conditions. Otero had undergone removal of part of his left kidney, liver, and lung after a violent assault, and the opinion states that his immune system was significantly compromised. Madrid had type 2 diabetes and obesity. Morocho Sumba had aortic valve disease, hypertension, and an enlarged heart, and had not been able to see a cardiologist in detention despite ongoing chest pain. Miranda had type 2 diabetes and gastrointestinal problems. Petitioners argued that their conditions created a particularly serious risk from COVID-19 and that detention made social distancing and infection control difficult. They also represented that two of the three facilities holding the remaining petitioners had confirmed COVID-19 cases.

The complaint asserted two due-process claims under the Fifth Amendment: a substantive claim that the government was deliberately indifferent to petitioners’ medical needs, and a procedural claim that the government had not provided adequate bond hearings. Petitioners sought immediate release or bond hearings within 48 hours. They moved for a temporary restraining order, which is emergency court relief issued before a final decision in the case.

Severance

The government argued that the petitioners’ claims should be separated into individual habeas petitions. The court declined to decide that issue at the emergency-relief stage because it lacked full briefing and because separating the claims would delay consideration of the urgent health risks. The court ordered the parties to meet and propose a briefing schedule so it could address severance later.

Court’s analysis

To obtain a temporary restraining order, petitioners had to show a likelihood of success on their claims, a likelihood of irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the equities favored them, and that an injunction served the public interest. Because petitioners sought an order requiring release, the court applied the higher standard for a mandatory injunction.

The court found irreparable harm because petitioners alleged violations of constitutional rights and faced an imminent risk to their health, safety, and lives. Their medical conditions made severe consequences from COVID-19 more likely, while detention increased the risk of infection and made isolation difficult. The court noted that two facilities holding the remaining petitioners had confirmed cases.

On the substantive due-process claim, the court applied the rule that the Fifth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to the medical needs of people held in civil detention. The court found that the petitioners had serious medical needs and that the government knew about their conditions and the risks posed by COVID-19. On the record before it, the government had not isolated high-risk detainees, created special safety or hygiene procedures for them, established testing procedures, or otherwise taken specific preventive action for this group. The court acknowledged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had suspended visits, increased sanitation in some areas, and provided hand sanitizer, but found those steps did not address the particular risks facing these petitioners. The court therefore concluded that petitioners had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the government’s conduct violated substantive due process.

On the procedural-due-process claim, the court stated that people detained under the relevant immigration detention law are entitled to bond hearings. It found that the circumstances required hearings to occur quickly and that the hearings had to consider the individual health risks posed by COVID-19. The court concluded that petitioners had shown a likelihood of success on this claim as well.

The court also found that the balance of the equities and the public interest favored release. The government conceded that the record contained no evidence that petitioners posed a flight risk. The government’s evidence of danger to the community consisted of limited criminal-history evidence, including two noncriminal disorderly-conduct convictions between the petitioners. The court determined that these concerns were outweighed by the public-health risks of continued detention.

Remedy and ruling

The court held that the petitioners had raised substantial claims and that extraordinary circumstances made release necessary to keep their requested habeas remedy effective. It concluded that remaining in detention exposed them to a significant risk of contracting COVID-19 before their claims could be meaningfully heard. For the procedural claim, the court additionally determined that petitioners needed release until constitutionally adequate bond hearings could occur. Those hearings were required to consider the COVID-19 risks and to place on the government the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a petitioner posed a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The court ordered the respondents to immediately release the petitioners on reasonable conditions and ordered the parties to meet and propose those conditions by noon on March 27, 2020. The order resolved the motion identified as Docket Number 16; it did not resolve the entire case or the later severance issue.