CA1 on ICE Detention of American Citizens: Morales v. Chadbourne

"]W]e agree with Morales that the law was clearly established in 2009 that, under the Fourth Amendment, an ICE agent required probable cause to issue an immigration detainer. We, therefore, affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on that issue. Because Donaghy's Fourth Amendment argument regarding the circumstances surrounding the detainer that he issued against Morales and his Fifth Amendment equal protection argument do not present pure issues of law, his appeal on these grounds must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. These arguments rely on facts asserted in Donaghy's declarations, and those facts were not among the ones that the district court relied upon in denying Donaghy's motion. Finally, because Morales has sufficiently alleged that supervisors Chadbourne and Riccio violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, we also affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment supervisory liability claim against them. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Morales v. Chadbourne, July 17, 2015.  [Hats off to Katherine Desormeau, R. Orion Danjuma, Omar C. Jadwat, Mark W. Freel, Mackenzie Mango, and Lena Graber!]

- See also: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/why-immigration-customs-enforcement-still-fighting-its-runaway-detainer-regime