Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Padilla v. ICE
"In this interlocutory appeal, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained after entering the United States and were found by an asylum officer to have a credible fear of persecution. We conclude that it did not, and we affirm the order of the district court, in part, and direct the district court to reconsider some of the technical aspects of its order. ... In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their challenge under the Due Process Clause to the detention of class members without any opportunity for a bond hearing. The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief and that the balance of the equities and public interest favored plaintiffs. Part Bof the district court’s preliminary injunction is thus AFFIRMED, except to the extent that it requires that bond hearings be administered under the conditions enumerated in Part A. We VACATE and REMAND Part A of the preliminary injunction to the district court for further factual development and consideration of the procedures that must be followed with respect to the required bond hearings. The district court must further develop the relevant factual record and revisit the scope of the injunction."
[Hats off to Matt Adams and team!]