UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA O.M.G., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Action No. 20-786 (JEB) CHAD WOLF, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION While the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives throughout our country, in few places has it proved more contagious than in congregate settings like prisons or detention centers. This case concerns three such settings known as family residential centers (FRCs), communal immigration-detention facilities reserved exclusively for migrant families. Petitioners are over 200 detainees currently held at the three FRCs, two of which are located in Texas and the third in Pennsylvania. They assert that the dangers posed by the ongoing pandemic render the conditions of their confinement at the FRCs a violation of their due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Petitioners argue that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has failed to effectively implement basic protective measures such as masking and social distancing. At the outset of this litigation, Petitioners’ central focus was on securing improvements in such conditions; now, they seek wholesale release from ICE confinement, and they urge this Court to grant a preliminary injunction to that effect. In parallel proceedings, another federal court — applying a longstanding consent decree, not the Due Process Clause — recently ordered the release of all minors who have been detained at an FRC for longer than twenty days. See 1 Flores v. Barr, No. 85-4544, 2020 WL 3488040, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2020). Many Petitioners are minors who qualify. As a practical matter, then, Petitioners’ request for release pertains principally to the adults among them. The Preliminary Injunction Motion presents difficult legal questions and turns on disputed factual allegations about what is actually taking place inside the FRCs. At this point, however, the Court need not untangle those knots. Even assuming the conditions of Petitioners’ confinement violate their due-process rights, they have not yet clearly shown that they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of blanket release from immigration detention. The Court will accordingly deny their Motion. I. Background A. Family Residential Centers Petitioners number over 200 of the 300-plus noncitizen parents and children who are currently detained in the three ICE FRCs: the Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania (Berks); the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas (Dilley); and the Karnes County Family Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas (Karnes). See ECF No. 1 (Mandamus Pet.), ¶ 2. Each facility exclusively holds migrant families, and each ordinarily operates as a congregate-care facility with communal sleeping quarters, bathrooms, dining rooms, and recreational areas. See ECF No. 1-2 (Declaration of Bridget Cambria), ¶¶ 14–15; ECF No. 1-4 (Declaration of Shalyn Fluharty), ¶¶ 6, 12–13; ECF No. 1-7 (Declaration of Andrea Meza), ¶¶ 7, 35. Dilley and Karnes can hold 2,400 and 830 individuals, respectively. See ECF No. 39-2 (Declaration of Michael Sheridan), ¶¶ 7, 31. Berks is a much smaller facility, able to house only 96. See ECF No. 39-3 (Declaration of Christopher George), ¶ 4. 2 Detainees at the Berks, Dilley, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals