Reyna-Montoya v. Trominski: TX District Court Grants Habeas and Certifies Class Challenging Mandatory Detention

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY

Arrest and Detention

REYNA-MONTOYA V. TROMINSKI: TEXAS DISTRICT COURT GRANTS HABEAS AND CERTIFIES CLASS CHALLENGING MANDATORY DETENTION
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 16, No. 7, November 22, 2002

A federal district court in Texas has granted a habeas corpus petition and certified a class action lawsuit filed by two lawful permanent residents who challenged their detention under the mandatory detention provision of Immigration and Nationality Act section 236(c). The two petitioners sought to enjoin implementation of section 236(c) as unconstitutional. Following the reasoning of the Third, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal, the district court held that the statute violates due process because it requires that the petitioners be detained indefinitely instead of being afforded a bond hearing. The government appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has temporarily stayed the decision.

The mandatory detention provision was passed as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1986 (IIRIRA). Under section 236(c), the Immigration and Naturalization Service may detain any non-U.S. citizen who is deportable or inadmissible because he or she has committed a crime of moral turpitude, an aggravated felony, a violation of controlled substance laws, certain firearms offenses, or other security-related crimes. Except in limited circumstances involving the need to protect witnesses or persons cooperating in criminal investigations, the INS considers that it has no discretion to release persons to whom the mandatory detention provision applies.

Several persons subject to the provision have challenged its constitutionality and have prevailed in actions brought before federal district and appellate courts. (For a listing of such cases, send an e-mail request to Liliana Garces of the American Civil Liberties Union (Lgarces@aclu.org). See also "3d and 9th Circuits Hold Mandatory Detention Provision Unconstitutional," Immigrants' Rights Update, Feb. 28, 2002, p. 11, and "10th Circuit Holds Mandatory Detention Unconstitutional," IRU, Apr. 12, 2002, p. 6.

The decisions in the cases challenging the mandatory detention statute follow the decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001) (see "Supreme Court Holds That INA Does Not Authorize Indefinite Detention," IRU, Aug. 31, 2001, p. 10). Zadvydas held that the indefinite detention of lawful permanent residents posed serious constitutional problems. It also held that in a civil proceeding that is presumptively nonpunitive, the INS must provide adequate justification for detaining individuals indefinitely. Following Zadvydas, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Kim v. Zigler, holding that because the INS could not possibly show that the statute covers only non-U.S. citizens who are dangerous to the public, any justification for its detention policy could not qualify as the special justification required under Zadvydas. The federal district court in Texas found the arguments in Kim persuasive. Relying on Kim as well as on decisions in the Third and Tenth Circuits, the court granted the habeas petition, certified the class, and ordered bond hearings for the two individually named petitioners.

Reyna-Montoya v. Trominski, Civ. No. B-02-026 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2002).