Here is the Memo; here is the Order. NOTE: Earlier today, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour GRANTED a Preliminary Injunction in WA v. Trump. I will post his Memo and...
PM 25-18 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 22-06 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDUM 20-05 PM 25-19 - EOIR’S ANTI-FRAUD PROGRAM
Funez-Ortiz v. McHenry "For nearly ten years, a Honduran gang conducted a campaign of terror and violence in Honduras against Petitioner Melvin Funez-Ortiz and his family. The gang murdered several...
PM 25-16 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-04 PM 25-17 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 22-05 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDA 19-05, 21-06, AND 21-13
PM 25-13 - OCAHO PM 25-14 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-03 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDUM 20-03 PM 25-15 - OFFICE OF LEGAL ACCESS PROGRAMS
Reid v. Donelan (2-1) - "This class action, brought on behalf of noncitizen detainees held without possibility of release pending the completion of their removal proceedings, comes before this court for a second time. See Reid v. Donelan, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1547 (2018), withdrawn, Nos. 14-1270, 14-1803, 14-1823, 2018 WL 4000993 (1st Cir. May 11, 2018). On this occasion, we affirm the district court's ruling that there is no per se constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing after six months of detention. We otherwise vacate the district court's declaratory and injunctive relief as advisory and remand for entry of judgment."
Dissent: "My colleagues rely on a "message strongly implied by the Supreme Court" to conclude that certain noncitizens detained by the government for six months have no right to a bond hearing to determine the need for their continued detention. I disagree that the Supreme Court has tipped its hand on that issue and, perhaps more importantly, I disagree that it is appropriate to engage in such predictive analysis. Rather, we should address the novel constitutional question presented to us and determine through the familiar due process balancing test the procedural safeguards necessary to protect the liberty interest of noncitizens detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 1226(c). In my view, that balancing demonstrates that such individuals are entitled to a bond hearing when they have been detained for six months. I therefore dissent."