Aida Amanda A. A. v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Petitioner Aida Amanda A. A.’s motion for a temporary restraining order concerning her immigration detention. The court concludes that Petitioner demonstrated likely success on a due process claim, irreparable harm, and favorable equitable and public-interest factors. The order directs her immediate release, restricts re-arrest or re-detention absent specified constitutional protections, and requires Respondents to show cause why the TRO should not be converted into a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. Petitioner raised serious questions, and the court found a clear interest, as to whether her continued freedom was a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause after she had been released into the community for two and a half years and had complied with required appointments and check-ins.
2. Petitioner was likely denied procedural due process because she had been detained for nearly two months without a bond or custody redetermination hearing, despite having no criminal history and having complied with required check-ins.
3. Petitioner satisfied the TRO requirements by showing likely success on her due process claim, irreparable harm from continued detention and separation from her family, favorable equities, and that relief served the public interest.
4. Respondents were enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation or custody hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she presents a danger to the community or a flight risk and must allow counsel to be present.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed on a procedural due process claim based on her detention without a bond or custody redetermination hearing.
2. Whether Petitioner satisfied the four requirements for a temporary restraining order.
3. What procedural protections were required before the Government could re-arrest or re-detain Petitioner.

Disposition

other