Domingo-Ros v. Archambeault

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirms its grant of Petitioners’ application for a temporary restraining order concerning their warrantless arrests and expedited removal proceedings. The order prohibits Respondents from removing Petitioners from the United States or relocating them to a detention facility outside the Southern District of California while the litigation proceeds. The Court finds serious questions regarding alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities, and sets additional hearings and a status conference.

Holdings

1. Petitioners satisfied the TRO standard because the record presented serious questions on the merits, likely irreparable harm from removal, and equities and public-interest considerations that tipped sharply in their favor.
2. The record raised serious questions whether petitioners' encounters with Border Patrol agents were consensual and, if not, whether the agents had reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts to justify the detentions.
3. The record raised serious questions whether petitioners, who were encountered in the interior of the United States, were entitled to constitutional protections and whether expedited removal was properly applied to them.
4. The TRO was properly limited to prohibiting respondents from removing petitioners from the United States or relocating them to a detention facility outside the Southern District of California pending resolution of the litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioners satisfied the standard for a temporary restraining order prohibiting their removal from the United States and relocation outside the Southern District of California.
2. Whether the record raised serious questions regarding the lawfulness of petitioners' warrantless stops and arrests under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the record raised serious questions regarding the application of expedited removal and the availability of Fifth Amendment procedural due process protections to noncitizens encountered in the interior of the United States.
4. Whether the requested injunction was sufficiently narrow under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).

Disposition

other