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.
Chhoeun v. Marin
"The question presented in these motions is whether the Constitution requires notice before an immigrant who is subject to a final removal order, but has been released despite that removal order (often for years or decades) and committed no further crimes, may be re-detained for purposes of removal. ... [T]he Court concludes that to protect Petitioners’ due process rights, the government must give them notice before re-detaining them for purposes of removal. The extraordinary circumstances of this case—including the long-dormant removal orders, changes in the law and in Petitioners’ lives, the sudden and unexpected threat of removal, and the barriers to accessing attorneys and documents while in detention—have undermined Petitioners’ ability to avail themselves of the administrative procedures in place to protect them from erroneous removals. Petitioners must be given notice so that they may have adequate time and opportunity to contact attorneys and access the system that has been constructed to prevent erroneous removals—a system that includes the thorough exhaustion of an administrative process and judicial review by the appropriate court of appeals. The added safeguard of notice also provides the additional value of allowing Petitioners to say goodbye to their families, and wrap up their affairs, including ensuring adequate care for their loved ones and notifying their employers. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from re-detaining any class member unless the Government first provides written notice consistent with this Court’s January 3, 2019 temporary restraining order."