CA9 on Detainers: Gonzalez v. ICE

Gonzalez v. ICE

"We resolve several issues in this opinion. First, we hold that Gonzalez had Article III standing to seek prospective injunctive relief when he commenced suit. The Government’s cancellation of the detainer against him does not alter that conclusion. Second, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the Probable Cause Subclass pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) with Gonzalez as the class representative. Third, we hold that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) does not bar injunctive relief for the claims in this case because the only provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) whose text even refers to immigration detainers is not among the provisions that § 1252(f)(1) encompasses. Fourth, we reverse and vacate the State Authority Injunction because the presence or absence of probable cause determines whether the Government violates the Fourth Amendment when issuing a detainer, not state law restrictions. In so holding, we underscore that we do not decide here whether immigration detainers might violate principles of federalism or preemption. Fifth, we reverse and vacate the Database Injunction because it is premised on legal error and lacks critical factual findings. Notably, the district court failed to assess error in the system of databases on which ICE relies to make probable cause determinations of removability. Finally, we reverse the summary judgment for the Government on Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (the Gerstein claim). Because the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to seize or detain an individual for a civil immigration offense, it follows that the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate to justify continued detention pursuant to an immigration detainer. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand."