CA9: Ariz. Prop. 100 Unconstitutional - Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio

"Arizona law categorically forbids granting undocumented immigrants arrested for a wide range of felony offenses any form of bail or pretrial release, even if the particular arrestee is not a flight risk or dangerous.  We must decide whether such an absolute denial comports with the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  We hold that it does not. ...

To conclude, Proposition 100 categorically denies bail or other pretrial release and thus requires pretrial detention for every undocumented immigrant charged with any of a broad range of felonies, regardless of the seriousness of the offense or the individual circumstances of the arrestee, including the arrestee’s strong ties to and deep roots in the community.  The defendants maintain that this unusual, sweeping pretrial detention statute, directed solely at undocumented immigrants, comports with substantive due process.  It does not.  The Supreme Court has made clear that “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”  Salerno,  481 U.S. at 755.  The “narrowly  focuse[d]” pretrial release statute upheld in Salerno provided a “careful delineation of the circumstances under which detention will be permitted.”  Id. at 750–51.  In contrast, the Proposition 100 laws do not address an established “particularly acute problem,” are not limited to “a specific category of extremely serious offenses,” and do not afford the individualized determination of flight risk or dangerousness that Salerno deemed essential.  Id. at 750.  These laws represent a “scattershot attempt” at addressing flight risk and are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.  Id.  In addition, and for the same reasons, the challenged laws are excessive in relation to the state’s legitimate interest in assuring arrestees’ presence for trial.  They therefore impermissibly impose punishment before an adjudication of guilt.  For these reasons, we hold that the Proposition 100 laws violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on these two independent grounds.  Because we hold that the laws facially violate substantive due process, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ procedural due process, Eighth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and preemption claims.  The judgment of the district court is reversed." - Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, Oct. 15, 2014.