UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-3118 (CKK) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 1, 2023) Several legal services organizations have moved for preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an order mandating that four civil-detention facilities (collectively, “Facilities”) institute a swath of policies and mechanisms related to communications between the organizations and detainees housed at those facilities. Asserting third-party standing, Plaintiffs mainly argue that current conditions violate detainees’ Fifth Amendment substantive rights to full and fair legal proceedings and to be free from punitive detention. Two of these organizations argue that current conditions violate certain detainees’ rights under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Finally, Plaintiffs bring an Accardi claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 et seq., arguing that Defendants’ purported failure to implement certain governing attorney- access measures at each of the four facilities is (1) a final agency action not in accordance with the law and/or (2) a final agency action unlawfully withheld. Again asserting third-party standing, two of these organizations argue that current conditions violate certain detainees’ rights under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on any of these claims, irreparable harm, or that the public interest weighs 1 in favor of preliminary relief. In brief, the Court concludes that one of these organizations has shown a clear likelihood of success on the merits of its substantive due process claim, but that no other organization has made such a showing as to any other claim. The Court therefore crafts a narrow injunctive relief in favor of one Plaintiff only and as to one facility only. Accordingly, and upon consideration of the briefing, 1 the relevant authorities, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ [55] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I. BACKGROUND Over the course of almost one thousand pages of briefing, five distinct legal services organizations seek wide-ranging equitable relief at four separate immigration detention facilities in four different states collectively housing thousands of immigrants to this country. In the broadest possible terms, they seek an entire overhaul of all communications policies, technology, and access at each facility, nominally on behalf of clients they never identify and, in part, to ameliorate legal proceedings they barely describe. Although each facility is ultimately answerable to Defendants—the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Secretary of Homeland 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following: • Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53 (“Am. Compl.”); • Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 55 (“Motion” or “Mot.”); • Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 66 (“Opp.”); • Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 69 (“Repl.”); and • Defendants’ Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 76 (“Surreply”). Although the Court has reviewed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals