Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

download Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

of 35

Transcript of Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    1/35

    United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

    Nos. 14- 1270, 14- 1803,14- 1823

    MARK ANTHONY REI D,

    Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee/ Cr oss- Appel l ant ,

    v.

    CHRI STOPHER DONELAN, Sher i f f , Fr ankl i n Count y, Massachuset t s;DAVI D A. LANOI E, Super i nt endent , Fr ankl i n Count y J ai l and House

    of Cor r ect i on; THOMAS M. HODGSON, Sher i f f , Br i st ol Count y,Massachuset t s; J OSEPH D. MCDONALD, J R. , Sher i f f , Pl ymout h

    Count y, Massachuset t s; STEVEN W. TOMPKI NS, Sher i f f , Suf f ol kCounty, Massachuset t s; J EH CHARLES J OHNSON, Uni t ed Stat es

    Secr etary of Homel and Secur i t y; DOROTHY HERRERA- NI LES, Di r ect or ,I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf or cement , Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce;

    J OHN T. MORTON, Di r ect or of I mmi grat i on and Cust oms Enf or cement ;ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , At t orney General ; J UAN OSUNA, Di r ect or of

    t he Execut i ve Of f i ce f or I mmi gr at i on Revi ew;EXECUTI VE OFFI CE FOR I MMI GRATI ON REVI EW,

    Respondent s, Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees.

    APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

    Bef ore

    Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udges.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    2/35

    El i ani s N. Per ez, Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , wi t h whomJ oyce Br anda, Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Ci vi l Di vi si on,Wi l l i am C. Peachey, Di r ector , Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on,Di st r i ct Cour t Sect i on, Col i n A. Ki sor , Deput y Di r ect or , andRegan Hi l debr and, Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , Of f i cer ofI mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on, Di st r i ct Cour t Sect i on, wer e on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

    Anant K. Sar aswat and Swapna C. Reddy, Law St udent I nt ern,wi t h whom Mar k C. Fl emi ng, Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dor rLLP, Ahi l an T. Ar ul anant ham, Mi chael Tan, ACLU I mmi gr ant s'Ri ght s Pr oj ect , Ni col e Hal l et t , Super vi si ng At t or ney, Mi chaelWi shni e, Super vi si ng At t or ney, Conchi t a Cr uz, Law St udentI nt er n, Gr ace Kao, Law St udent I nt er n, Lunar Mai , Law St udentI nt ern, My Khanh Ngo, Law St udent I nt ern, Rut h Swi f t , LawSt udent I nt er n, and J er ome N. Fr ank Legal Ser vi ces, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

    Apr i l 13, 2016

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    3/35

    - 2 -

    STAHL, Circuit Judge. Under 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ,

    al i ens who have commi t t ed cert ai n cr i mi nal of f enses ar e subj ect

    t o mandat or y det ent i on af t er servi ng t hei r cr i mi nal sent ence and

    pendi ng t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs. Pet i t i oner , a l awf ul

    per manent r esi dent , commi t t ed such of f enses, ser ved hi s

    sentence, and t hen was hel d under 1226( c) wi t hout an

    i ndi vi dual i zed showi ng t hat he posed a f l i ght r i sk or danger t o

    soci et y and wi t hout an oppor t uni t y t o seek r el ease on bond.

    Af t er ei ght mont hs, Pet i t i oner chal l enged hi s cont i nui ng

    det ent i on and f i l ed a cl ass act i on on behal f of hi msel f and

    si mi l ar l y si t uat ed nonci t i zens hel d f or over si x mont hs.

    The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat det ent i on pur suant t o

    1226( c) f or over si x mont hs was presumpt i vel y unr easonabl e and

    gr ant ed summary j udgment t o t he cl ass, t hereby ent i t l i ng each

    cl ass member t o a bond hear i ng. Wi t h r espect t o Pet i t i oner , t he

    cour t al so hel d, i n t he al t er nat i ve, t hat t he i ndi vi dual i zed

    ci r cumst ances of hi s case r endered hi s det ent i on unr easonabl e.

    Fi nal l y, t he cour t decl i ned t o mandat e cer t ai n pr ocedur al

    pr ot ect i ons f or t he cl ass member s' bond hear i ngs. We af f i r m t he

    j udgment wi t h r espect t o Pet i t i oner , vacat e t he j udgment wi t h

    r espect t o t he cl ass members, and r emand t he cl ass act i on f or

    r econsi der at i on of t he di str i ct cour t ' s cl ass cer t i f i cat i on.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    4/35

    - 3 -

    I. Facts & Background

    The U. S. Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y ( "DHS")

    gener al l y has t he di scret i onar y aut hor i t y t o det ai n an al i en

    dur i ng r emoval pr oceedi ngs. 8 U. S. C. 1226( a) . An al i en t hat

    U. S. I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf orcement ( " I CE") deci des t o

    det ai n under 1226( a) may seek a bond hear i ng bef ore an

    i mmi gr at i on j udge ( "I J ") t o show t hat he or she i s not a f l i ght

    r i sk or a danger . 8 C. F. R. 236. 1( c) ( 8) . For al i ens who have

    commi t t ed cer t ai n cr i mi nal or t er r or i st of f enses, however ,

    Congr ess made detent i on dur i ng removal pr oceedi ngs mandatory,

    except f or wi t ness pr ot ect i on pur poses. 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) .

    Mar k Ant hony Rei d ( "Rei d" or "Pet i t i oner " ) came t o t he

    Uni t ed St ates i n 1978 as a l awf ul permanent r esi dent . Between

    1978 and 1986, Rei d ser ved i n t he U. S. Ar my, pur sued post -

    secondary educat i on, was empl oyed as a l oan or i gi nator , worked

    i n const r uct i on, and owned and r ent ed sever al pr oper t i es.

    Fol l owi ng a convi ct i on f or nar cot i cs possessi on i n 1986,

    however , Rei d amassed an extensi ve cr i mi nal r ecord, i ncl udi ng

    l ar ceny, assaul t , dr ug and weapon possessi on, f ai l ur e t o appear ,

    i nt er f er i ng wi t h an of f i cer , dr i vi ng on a suspended l i cense,

    sel l i ng dr ugs, vi ol at i on of pr obat i on, and bur gl ar y.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    5/35

    - 4 -

    Af t er bei ng r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody on November

    13, 2012, Rei d was detai ned by I CE under 1226( c) wi t hout bond

    pendi ng i mmi gr at i on r emoval proceedi ngs. Rei d conceded t he

    f act ual al l egat i ons under l yi ng hi s r emovabi l i t y char ges, but

    sought r el i ef f r om r emoval on t wo gr ounds: ( 1) t hat t he

    Convent i on Agai nst Tor t ur e ( "CAT" ) appl i ed, and (2) t hat r emoval

    was a di spropor t i onat e puni shment f or hi s cr i mes.

    At sever al I J hear i ngs hel d bet ween Febr uar y 13, 2013

    and March 11, 2013, Rei d pr esent ed evi dence i n suppor t of hi s

    appl i cat i on f or r el i ef f r om r emoval . On Apr i l 5, 2013, t he I J

    deni ed Rei d' s appl i cat i on and or der ed hi m r emoved t o J amai ca.

    Rei d f i l ed a not i ce of appeal t o t he Boar d of I mmi gr at i on

    Appeal s ( "BI A") on May 5, 2013. On Oct ober 23, 2013, near l y

    hal f a year af t er t he I J ' s deci si on and near l y a f ul l year af t er

    Rei d' s detent i on began, t he BI A r eversed and remanded t he case

    f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs r el at ed t o Rei d' s CAT cl ai m. On

    December 17, 2013, t he I J agai n deni ed Rei d' s CAT cl ai m. Rei d

    appeal ed agai n and, on December 29, 2014, t he BI A f ound er r or

    and r emanded the case once mor e.

    Bet ween hi s f i r st appeal and t he BI A' s f i r st r emand,

    Rei d f i l ed t he pr esent habeas cor pus pet i t i on al ong wi t h a

    cl ass- act i on compl ai nt i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    6/35

    - 5 -

    t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. Rei d cont ends that he and ot her

    si mi l ar l y si t uat ed nonci t i zens cannot be hel d under 1226( c) i n

    pr ol onged det ent i on wi t hout an i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng t o

    ascer t ai n i ndi vi dual f l i ght or saf et y r i sk. Rei d ar gues t hat

    1226( c) cont ai ns an i mpl i ci t " r easonabl eness" r equi r ement and

    shoul d be read t o aut hor i ze mandat or y det ent i on onl y up t o si x

    mont hs, at whi ch t i me t he gover nment must provi de a bond

    hear i ng. At t he bond hear i ng, Rei d argues, t he government must

    bear t he bur den of pr esent i ng cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence that

    detent i on r emai ns necessary. What i s more, Rei d cont ends t hat

    t he gover nment must empl oy t he l east r est r i ct i ve means avai l abl e

    t o pr event t he al i en' s f l i ght or danger t o the communi t y.

    On J anuar y 9, 2014, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Rei d' s

    habeas pet i t i on and hel d t hat 1226( c) onl y aut hor i zes

    mandat or y det ent i on f or a r easonabl e per i od of t i me. Rei d v.

    Donel an ( Rei d I ) , 991 F. Supp. 2d 275, 278- 79 ( D. Mass. 2014) .

    The cour t f ur t her hel d t hat det ent i on over si x mont hs was

    pr esumpt i vel y unr easonabl e absent i ndi vi dual i zed j ust i f i cat i on.

    I d. at 279- 81. The cour t al so not ed t hat even i f no such

    pr esumpt i on appl i ed, t he i ndi vi dual i zed ci r cumst ances of Rei d' s

    case r ender ed hi s cont i nued det ent i on unr easonabl e. I d. at 281-

    82. The cour t ordered t he government t o set a hear i ng and t o

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    7/35

    - 6 -

    det er mi ne whet her condi t i ons coul d be pl aced upon Rei d' s r el ease

    t o r easonabl y account f or any f l i ght or saf et y r i sks. I d. at

    282. On Febr uar y 25, 2014, Rei d post ed bond and was rel eased

    af t er 400 days of ci vi l det ent i on, subj ect t o el ect r oni c

    moni t or i ng, mont hl y repor t i ng, and ot her condi t i ons.

    On May 27, 2014, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary

    j udgment i n t he r el at ed cl ass act i on and or der ed bond hear i ngs

    f or al l cl ass member s. Rei d v. Donel an ( Rei d I I ) , 22 F. Supp.

    3d 84, 93- 94 ( D. Mass. 2014) . The cour t r ei t er at ed i t s hol di ng

    t hat 1226( c) onl y j ust i f i es mandat or y det ent i on f or a per i od

    of si x mont hs, at whi ch t i me the detent i on becomes pr esumpt i vel y

    unr easonabl e absent an i ndi vi dual i zed showi ng at a bond hear i ng.

    I d. at 88. However , t he cour t decl i ned t o adopt any speci f i c

    pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons f or t he bond hear i ngs t hemsel ves. I d. at

    92- 93. The cour t observed t hat al i ens det ai ned under 1226( a)

    bor e t he bur den of pr oof at t hei r bond hear i ngs, and

    " i ndi vi dual s who commi t t ed a 1226( c) pr edi cat e of f ense shoul d

    not r ecei ve mor e pr ot ect i ons t han 1226( a) det ai nees. " I d. at

    92.

    The gover nment appeal s t he l ower cour t ' s det er mi nat i on

    t hat 1226( c) cont ai ns an i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness r equi r ement ,

    t hat any det ent i on under 1226( c) i s presumpt i vel y unr easonabl e

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    8/35

    - 7 -

    af t er si x mont hs, and t hat Rei d' s speci f i c det ent i on had become

    unr easonabl e. Rei d cr oss- appeal s t he l ower cour t ' s cl ass

    det er mi nat i on t hat bond hear i ngs f or al i ens hel d pur suant t o

    1226( c) do not r equi r e speci f i c pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons.

    II. Analysis

    Unt i l t he l at e 1980s, t he At t or ney Gener al had br oad

    aut hor i t y to t ake al i ens i nt o cust ody dur i ng t hei r r emoval

    pr oceedi ngs and t o r el ease t hose al i ens i n hi s di scr et i on. See

    Demor e v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 519 ( 2003) ( ci t i ng 8 U. S. C.

    1252( a) ( 1982) ) . Over t i me, Congr ess became concerned t hat

    cr i mi nal al i ens t oo of t en obt ai ned r el ease and wer e ther eby abl e

    t o evade r emoval and cont i nue commi t t i ng cr i mes. See i d. at

    518- 21. I n r esponse, " Congr ess l i mi t ed t he At t or ney Gener al ' s

    di scr et i on over cust ody det er mi nat i ons wi t h r espect t o

    depor t abl e al i ens who had been convi ct ed of aggr avat ed f el oni es"

    and t hen expanded t he def i ni t i on of "aggr avat ed f el oni es" i n

    subsequent l egi sl at i on t o subj ect mor e cr i mi nal al i ens t o

    mandat or y det ent i on. I d. at 520- 21. "At t he same t i me,

    however , Congr ess . . . aut hor i ze[ d] t he At t or ney Gener al t o

    r el ease per manent r esi dent al i ens dur i ng t hei r depor t at i on

    pr oceedi ngs wher e such al i ens wer e f ound not t o const i t ut e a

    f l i ght r i sk or t hr eat t o t he communi t y. " I d. at 521.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    9/35

    - 8 -

    The cur r ent t ake on t hi s mandat or y det ent i on t heme can

    be f ound i n 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) , whi ch r equi r es t he At t or ney

    Gener al 1 t o t ake cr i mi nal al i ens i nt o cust ody "when r el eased"2

    f r om cr i mi nal cust ody and onl y per mi t s t he r el ease of such

    al i ens f or l i mi t ed wi t ness pr ot ect i on pur poses. See 8 U. S. C.

    1226( c) . Whatever t he mer i t s of t hi s appr oach may be as a

    mat t er of pol i cy, we must ensur e t hat t he st at ut e f al l s wi t hi n

    const i t ut i onal l i mi t s .

    The const i t ut i onal i t y of t he cat egor i cal det ent i on

    scheme embodi ed i n 1226( c) was f i r st put t o the test i n

    Demore. I n Demore, t he pet i t i oner l aunched a br oad at t ack on

    t he st at ut e, ar gui ng " t hat hi s det ent i on under 1226( c)

    vi ol at ed due pr ocess because t he [ government ] had made no

    det er mi nat i on t hat he posed ei t her a danger t o soci et y or a

    1 Al t hough t he r el evant st at ut or y sect i ons r ef er t o t heAt t or ney Gener al , t he Homel and Secur i t y Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.107- 296, 116 St at . 2135 ( 2002) , t r ansf er r ed al l i mmi gr at i onenf or cement and admi ni st r at i on f unct i ons vest ed i n t he At t or neyGener al , wi t h f ew except i ons, t o t he Secr et ar y of Homel andSecur i t y.

    2 The i nst ant case asks what 1226( c) r equi r es af t er acr i mi nal al i en has been br ought i nt o cust ody. Thi s case doesnot t ouch upon what t he st at ut e r equi r es at t he commencement ofsuch det ent i on. Thi s ci r cui t r ecent l y consi der ed t he meani ng oft he st at ut e s "when . . . r el eased" provi si on i n Cast aeda v.Souza, 810 F. 3d 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( en banc) .

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    10/35

    - 9 -

    f l i ght r i sk. " 538 U. S. at 514. I n ot her wor ds, t he pet i t i oner

    ar gued t hat hi s det ent i on was unconst i t ut i onal f r om t he out set

    due t o t he cat egor i cal nat ur e of t he mandat or y detent i on r egi me.

    The Supreme Cour t r ej ect ed t he chal l enge and uphel d

    t he st at ut e i n a nar r owl y f r amed r ul i ng. The Cour t r ecogni zed

    t he const i t ut i onal pr essur es at pl ay, cal l i ng i t "wel l

    est abl i shed t hat t he Fi f t h Amendment ent i t l es al i ens t o due

    pr ocess of l aw i n depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs. " I d. at 523 ( quot i ng

    Reno v. Fl or es, 507 U. S. 292, 306 ( 1993) ) . Yet , t he Cour t al so

    not ed t hat "[ d] et ent i on i s necessar i l y a par t of [ t he]

    depor t at i on pr ocedur e, " i d. at 524 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

    ( quot i ng Car l son v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 538 ( 1952) ) , and t hat

    Congr ess may empl oy " r easonabl e pr esumpt i ons and gener i c r ul es"

    when l egi sl at i ng wi t h r espect t o al i ens, i d. at 526 ( quot i ng

    Fl or es, 507 U. S. at 313) . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t l ef t a l i mi t ed

    degr ee of const i t ut i onal space t o Congr ess' cat egor i cal j udgment

    t hat , "even wi t h i ndi vi dual i zed scr eeni ng, r el easi ng depor t abl e

    cr i mi nal al i ens on bond woul d l ead t o an unaccept abl e rat e of

    f l i ght . " I d. at 520.

    The " l i mi t ed" scope of t hi s cat egor i cal sanct i on,

    however , was pl ai nl y evi dent . The Cour t made t he br evi t y of t he

    det ent i on cent r al t o i t s hol di ng: "We hol d t hat Congr ess,

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    11/35

    - 10 -

    j ust i f i abl y concer ned t hat depor t abl e cr i mi nal al i ens who ar e

    not det ai ned cont i nue t o engage i n cr i me and f ai l t o appear f or

    t hei r r emoval hear i ngs i n l ar ge number s, may requi r e t hat

    per sons such as respondent be det ai ned f or t he br i ef per i od

    necessary f or t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs. " I d. at 513 ( emphasi s

    added) . Thi s was no passi ng r emar k. See i d. at 526 ( " [ T] he

    Gover nment may const i t ut i onal l y det ai n depor t abl e al i ens dur i ng

    t he l i mi t ed per i od necessar y f or t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs. "

    ( emphasi s added) ) . I ndeed, t he Cour t t ook pai ns t o poi nt out

    t he speci f i c dur at i ons t hat i t envi si oned wer e encompassed by

    i t s hol di ng: "[ T] he det ent i on at st ake under 1226( c) l ast s

    r oughl y a mont h and a hal f i n t he vast maj or i t y of cases i n

    whi ch i t i s i nvoked, and about f i ve mont hs i n t he mi nor i t y of

    cases i n whi ch t he al i en chooses t o appeal . " I d. at 530.

    I n a concur r i ng opi ni on, J ust i ce Kennedy dr ove t he

    poi nt of t empor al l i mi t at i ons home, not i ng t hat an al i en "coul d

    be ent i t l ed t o an i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on as t o hi s r i sk of

    f l i ght and danger ousness i f t he cont i nued det ent i on became

    unr easonabl e or unj ust i f i ed. " I d. at 532 ( Kennedy, J . ,

    concur r i ng) . "Were t here t o be an unr easonabl e del ay by t he

    [ gover nment ] i n pur sui ng and compl et i ng deport at i on pr oceedi ngs,

    i t coul d become necessar y t hen to i nqui r e whet her t he det ent i on

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    12/35

    - 11 -

    i s not t o f aci l i t at e depor t at i on, or t o pr ot ect agai nst r i sk of

    f l i ght or danger ousness, but t o i ncar cer at e f or ot her r easons. "

    I d. at 532- 33.

    The case bef or e us t est s t he assumpt i on upon whi ch

    Demor e was based, and asks whether Congr ess may empl oy

    cat egor i cal , mandat or y det ent i on f or " t he per i od necessar y f or

    r emoval pr oceedi ngs" when t hat per i od t ur ns out not t o be so

    "br i ef " af t er al l .

    The concept of a cat egor i cal , mandat or y, and

    i ndet er mi nat e det ent i on r ai ses sever e const i t ut i onal concer ns.

    "Freedom f r om i mpr i sonment - - f r om gover nment cust ody, det ent i on,

    or ot her f or ms of physi cal r est r ai nt - - l i es at t he hear t of t he

    l i ber t y t hat [ t he Due Pr ocess] Cl ause pr ot ect s. " Zadvydas v.

    Davi s, 533 U. S. 678, 690 ( 2001) . Because of t he l i mi t ed nat ur e

    of t he hol di ng i n Demor e, ever y f eder al cour t of appeal s t o

    exami ne 1226( c) has r ecogni zed t hat t he Due Process Cl ause

    i mposes some f or m of " r easonabl eness" l i mi t at i on upon t he

    dur at i on of det ent i on t hat can be consi der ed j ust i f i abl e under

    t hat st at ut e. See Lor a v. Shanahan, 804 F. 3d 601, 606 ( 2d Ci r .

    2015) ; Rodr i guez v. Robbi ns ( Rodr i guez I ) , 715 F. 3d 1127, 1138

    ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ; Di op v. I CE/ Homel and Sec. , 656 F. 3d 221, 232- 33

    ( 3d Ci r . 2011) ; Ly v. Hansen, 351 F. 3d 263, 269- 70 ( 6t h Ci r .

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    13/35

    - 12 -

    2003) . And, each ci r cui t has f ound i t necessary t o r ead an

    i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness r equi r ement i nt o t he st at ut e i t sel f ,

    gener al l y based on t he doct r i ne of const i t ut i onal avoi dance.

    See Lor a, 804 F. 3d at 614; Rodr i guez I , 715 F. 3d at 1138; Di op,

    656 F. 3d at 235; Ly, 351 F. 3d at 270.

    Thi s i s not , as t he gover nment cont ends, cont r ar y t o

    congr essi onal i nt ent . "[ C] our t s i nt er pr et st at ut es wi t h t he

    pr esumpt i on t hat Congr ess does not i nt end t o pass

    unconst i t ut i onal l aws. " Di op, 656 F. 3d at 231. I n t hi s case,

    "whi l e Congr ess di d expr ess a desi r e t o have cer t ai n cr i mi nal

    al i ens i ncar cer at ed dur i ng r emoval pr oceedi ngs, i t al so made

    cl ear t hat such pr oceedi ngs wer e t o pr oceed qui ckl y. " Ly, 351

    F. 3d at 269; see al so Di op, 656 F. 3d at 235 ( "We do not bel i eve

    t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o aut hor i ze pr ol onged, unr easonabl e[ ]

    det ent i on wi t hout a bond hear i ng. " ) . Thi s r eadi ng si mi l ar l y

    accor ds wi t h Demor e' s aut hor i zat i on of onl y a "br i ef " or

    " l i mi t ed" det ent i on, 538 U. S. at 513, 526, and J ust i ce Kennedy' s

    st i pul at i on t hat an i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on woul d become

    necessary "i f t he cont i nued detent i on became unr easonabl e or

    unj ust i f i ed, " i d. at 532 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) .

    Yet , t he cour t s of appeal s have spl i t on t he met hod

    f or enf or ci ng t hi s st at ut or y r easonabl eness r equi r ement . The

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    14/35

    - 13 -

    Thi r d and Si xt h Ci r cui t s have hel d t hat i ndi vi dual i zed r evi ew i s

    necessary i n order t o det ermi ne whether t he detent i on has become

    unr easonabl e. See Di op, 656 F. 3d at 233 ( not i ng t hat t he

    i nqui r y i nt o whet her det ent i on has become unr easonabl e "wi l l

    necessar i l y be a f act - dependent i nqui r y t hat wi l l var y dependi ng

    on i ndi vi dual ci r cumst ances" and "decl i n[ i ng] t o est abl i sh a

    uni ver sal poi nt at whi ch det ent i on wi l l al ways be consi der ed

    unr easonabl e" ) ; Ly, 351 F. 3d at 271 ( "A br i ght - l i ne t i me

    l i mi t at i on . . . woul d not be appr opr i at e . . . . [ C] our t s must

    exami ne the f act s of each case[ ] t o determi ne whether t here has

    been unr easonabl e del ay i n concl udi ng r emoval pr oceedi ngs. " ) .

    "Under t hi s appr oach, ever y det ai nee must f i l e a habeas pet i t i on

    chal l engi ng det ent i on, and t he di st r i ct cour t s must t hen

    adj udi cat e t he pet i t i on t o det er mi ne whet her t he i ndi vi dual ' s

    det ent i on has cr ossed t he ' r easonabl eness' t hr eshol d, t hus

    ent i t l i ng hi m t o a bai l hear i ng. " Lor a, 804 F. 3d at 614; see

    al so Ly, 351 F. 3d at 272.

    The Second and Ni nth Ci r cui t s, on t he ot her hand, have

    "appl [ i ed] a br i ght - l i ne r ul e t o cases of mandat or y det ent i on"

    and have hel d t hat " t he government ' s ' st atut ory mandatory

    det ent i on aut hor i t y under Sect i on 1226( c) . . . [ i s] l i mi t ed t o

    a si x- mont h per i od, subj ect t o a f i ndi ng of f l i ght r i sk or

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    15/35

    - 14 -

    danger ousness. ' " Lor a, 804 F. 3d at 614 ( al t er at i ons i n

    or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Rodr i guez I , 715 F. 3d at 1133) . Under t hi s

    i nt er pr et at i on, ever y al i en hel d pur suant t o 1226( c) must be

    pr ovi ded a bond hear i ng once hi s or her detent i on r eaches t he

    si x- mont h mark, because any cat egor i cal and mandat ory detent i on

    beyond t hat t i mef r ame i s pr esumpt i vel y unr easonabl e. I d. at

    616. The det ai nee may cont i nue t o be hel d i f an I J det er mi nes

    t hat t he i ndi vi dual does, i n f act , pose a f l i ght r i sk or danger

    t o soci et y, but t he cat egor i cal nat ur e of t he det ent i on expi r es.

    I d.

    I n t hi s ci r cui t spl i t , we sense a t ensi on bet ween

    l egal j ust i f i cat i ons and pr act i cal consi der at i ons. Fr om a

    st r i ct l y l egal per spect i ve, we t hi nk t hat t he Thi r d and Si xt h

    Ci r cui t s have t he bet t er of t he ar gument . Thi s vi ew i s i nf or med

    by our anal ysi s r egar di ng t he sour ce of t he si x- mont h r ul e, t he

    nat ur e of t he r easonabl eness i nqui r y i t sel f , and t he

    ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng the Supr eme Cour t ' s Demore deci si on.

    To j ust i f y empl oyi ng a si x- mont h presumpt i on, t he

    Second and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s poi nt t o t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on

    i n Zadvydas. Ther e, t he Cour t was f aced wi t h a par t i cul ar l y

    t horny pr obl em. Al i ens who had been deemed unl awf ul l y pr esent ,

    had compl eted r emoval pr oceedi ngs, and had a f i nal r emoval order

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    16/35

    - 15 -

    ent er ed agai nst t hem wer e subj ect t o det ent i on dur i ng a 90- day

    st at ut or y "r emoval per i od" whi l e t he gover nment secur ed t hei r

    physi cal r emoval f r om t he count r y. 533 U. S. at 682. I f t he

    gover nment f ai l ed t o remove t he al i en f r om t he count r y dur i ng

    t hi s t i me per i od, t he gover nment coul d cont i nue t o det ai n t hem

    f or successi ve per i ods so l ong as t hey posed a r i sk t o t he

    communi t y or were unl i kel y t o compl y wi t h the or der of r emoval

    when such physi cal r emoval became possi bl e. I d. The t r oubl e

    arose when, f or one reason or another , t here was si mpl y no

    count r y wi l l i ng t o accept t he al i en and no r easonabl y

    f or eseeabl e poi nt at whi ch t he det ai ned i ndi vi dual woul d ever be

    r el eased f r om t hi s t heor et i cal l y i nt er i m det ent i on. I d. at 684-

    86. The quest i on t hus became "whether [ t he] post - r emoval - per i od

    st at ut e aut hor i ze[ d] t he At t or ney Gener al t o det ai n a r emovabl e

    al i en i ndef i ni t el y beyond t he r emoval per i od or onl y f or a

    per i od r easonabl y necessar y t o secur e t he al i en' s removal . " I d.

    at 682.

    Ther e, as her e, t he sol ut i on was t o r ead an i mpl i ci t

    r easonabl eness l i mi t at i on i nt o t he st at ut e t o avoi d

    const i t ut i onal conf l i ct. I d. at 689. The Cour t hel d t hat "i f

    r emoval i s not r easonabl y f or eseeabl e, " t hen "cont i nued

    det ent i on . . . [ i s] no l onger aut hor i zed by [ t he] st at ut e. "

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    17/35

    - 16 -

    I d. at 699- 700. The Cour t t hen went one st ep f ur t her and

    adopt ed a si x- mont h pr esumpt i on: "Af t er [ a] [ si x] mont h per i od,

    once t he al i en pr ovi des good r eason t o bel i eve t hat t her e i s no

    si gni f i cant l i kel i hood of r emoval i n t he r easonabl y f or eseeabl e

    f ut ur e, t he Gover nment must r espond wi t h evi dence suf f i ci ent t o

    r ebut t hat showi ng. " I d. at 701.

    Al t hough i t i s t empt i ng t o t r anspl ant t hi s pr esumpt i on

    i nt o 1226( c) based on t he super f i ci al si mi l ar i t i es of t he

    pr obl ems posed, such a pr esumpt i on has no pl ace here. Unl i ke

    t he "post - r emoval - per i od det ent i on" at i ssue i n Zadvydas, whi ch

    had "no obvi ous t er mi nat i on poi nt , " a "det ent i on pendi ng a

    det er mi nat i on of r emovabi l i t y" under 1226( c) has "a def i ni t e

    t er mi nat i on poi nt . " Demor e, 538 U. S. at 529 ( quot i ng Zadvydas,

    533 U. S. at 697) . J ust because t he concl usi on of r emoval

    proceedi ngs may not be i mmi nent does not mean t he concl usi on i s

    not r easonabl y f or eseeabl e. Why does t hi s di st i nct i on mat t er ?

    Because the si x- mont h presumpt i on devel oped i n Zadvydas woul d

    never be t r i ggered under t he ci r cumst ances f ound here.

    I n adopt i ng a br i ght - l i ne si x- mont h r ul e, t he Second

    and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s have l ooked past t he pr i mar y l esson of

    Zadvydas and f i xat ed on a secondary, backup r ul e. I n Zadvydas,

    t he Cour t r ead an i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness l i mi t at i on i nt o t he

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    18/35

    - 17 -

    st at ut e and t hen not ed t hat j udges eval uat i ng such cases "shoul d

    measur e r easonabl eness pr i mar i l y i n t er ms of t he st at ut e' s basi c

    pur pose. " 533 U. S. at 699. When f aced wi t h a detent i on wi t h no

    r easonabl y f or eseeabl e end, t he st at ut e' s pur pose- - "namel y,

    assur i ng the al i en' s pr esence at t he moment of r emoval " - - was

    dr awn i nt o doubt , maki ng cont i nued detent i on "unr easonabl e and

    no l onger aut hor i zed by [ t he] s t at ut e. " I d. at 699- 700.

    Thi s pr i mar y hol di ng was t hen but t r essed by a

    secondar y br i ght - l i ne si x- mont h r ul e. The Cour t poi nt ed out

    t hat not ever y al i en t o be r emoved woul d be rel eased af t er si x

    mont hs. "To t he cont r ary, an al i en may be hel d i n conf i nement

    unt i l i t has been det er mi ned t hat t her e i s no si gni f i cant

    l i kel i hood of r emoval i n t he r easonabl y f or eseeabl e f ut ur e. "

    I d. at 701. I f si x mont hs had passed and t he al i en had

    demonst r at ed "no si gni f i cant l i kel i hood of r emoval i n t he

    r easonabl y f or eseeabl e f ut ur e, " t hen the gover nment was r equi r ed

    t o " r espond wi t h evi dence suf f i ci ent t o r ebut t hat showi ng. "

    I d. I f t he government coul d demonst r ate a r easonabl y

    f or eseeabl e t er mi nat i on poi nt , t he det ent i on cont i nued.

    Thus, t he secondar y si x- mont h r ul e was predi cat ed on

    t her e bei ng no f or eseeabl e hope of r emoval . Unl i ke i n t hi s

    case, t he conf i nement at i ssue i n Zadvydas was " pot ent i al l y

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    19/35

    - 18 -

    per manent . " I d. at 691. Because t he det ent i on i n such cases

    had t o st op at some poi nt , and there were si mpl y no met r i cs by

    whi ch to j udge j ust how much l onger t owards et erni t y coul d be

    consi der ed " r easonabl e, " a br i ght - l i ne r ul e was war r ant ed. That

    i s why we t hi nk i t i nappr opr i at e t o i mpor t t he si x- mont h

    pr esumpt i on f r om Zadvydas i nt o a st at ut e wher e i ndi vi dual i zed

    r easonabl eness r evi ew r emai ns f easi bl e.

    Thi s br i ngs us t o t he char act er of t he

    "r easonabl eness" i nqui r y i t sel f . As the Di op cour t poi nt ed out ,

    " [ r ] easonabl eness, by i t s ver y nat ur e, i s a f act - dependent

    i nqui r y requi r i ng an assessment of al l of t he ci r cumst ances of

    any gi ven case. " 656 F. 3d at 234. The r easonabl eness of

    cont i nued detent i on under 1226( c) must be measured "pr i mar i l y

    i n t er ms of t he st at ut e' s basi c pur pose. " Zadvydas, 533 U. S. at

    699. Al t hough t he st at ut e' s pur pose at f i r st gl ance i s t o

    pr ot ect publ i c saf et y and ensur e t hat al i ens appear f or t hei r

    r emoval pr oceedi ngs, we t hi nk t he pur pose i s a bi t more nuanced

    t han t hat . I f an i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on of f l i ght and

    saf et y ri sk wer e suf f i ci ent , f or exampl e, t her e woul d be l i t t l e

    r eason t o pass 1226( c) at al l .

    I nst ead, t he st at ut e was passed "agai nst a backdr op of

    whol esal e f ai l ur e by t he I NS t o deal wi t h i ncr easi ng r at es of

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    20/35

    - 19 -

    cri mi nal act i vi t y by al i ens" and "near - t ot al i nabi l i t y t o r emove

    depor t abl e cr i mi nal al i ens" due t o "t he agency' s f ai l ur e t o

    det ai n [ such] al i ens dur i ng t hei r depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs. "

    Demore, 538 U. S. at 518- 19. Thus, t he ani mat i ng f orce behi nd

    1226( c) i s i t s cat egor i cal and mandat or y t r eat ment of a

    cer t ai n cl ass of cr i mi nal al i ens. Measur i ng r easonabl eness by

    t hi s basi c pur pose r equi r es a di f f er ent i nqui r y t han t he f l i ght -

    and- saf et y- r i sk eval uat i on conduct ed i n an i ndi vi dual i zed bond

    hear i ng. Ther ef or e, ar gui ng t hat al i ens r ecei ve t he equi val ent

    of an i ndi vi dual i zed " r easonabl eness" r evi ew at t hei r bond

    hear i ngs ent ai l s a cer t ai n j udi ci al sl ei ght - of - hand. See

    Rodr i guez I , 715 F. 3d at 1139. I t i s a supposed f i ndi ng of

    "unr easonabl eness" under t he i mpl i ci t st at ut or y l i mi t at i on t hat

    ent i t l es t he al i en t o a bond hear i ng i n t he f i r st pl ace. I n

    ot her wor ds, whi l e t he Second and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s cl ai m t o have

    r ead an i mpl i ci t " r easonabl eness l i mi t at i on" i nt o 1226( c) , we

    t hi nk i t mor e accur at e t o say t hat t hey have si mpl y r ead an

    i mpl i ci t "si x- mont h expi r at i on" i nt o 1226( c) .

    Fi nal l y, we vi ew Demor e as i mpl i ci t l y f or ecl osi ng our

    abi l i t y t o adopt a f i r m si x- mont h r ul e. I n Demor e, t he Supr eme

    Cour t decl i ned t o st at e any speci f i c t i me l i mi t i n a case

    i nvol vi ng a detai nee who had al r eady been hel d f or appr oxi matel y

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    21/35

    - 20 -

    si x mont hs. See 538 U. S. at 530- 31 ( not i ng t hat most r emoval

    pr oceedi ngs usual l y r equi r e one t o f i ve mont hs, and t hat t he

    r espondent had been "detai ned f or somewhat l onger t han t he

    aver age spendi ng si x mont hs i n I NS cust ody pr i or t o the

    . . . habeas r el i ef " ) ; Ly, 351 F. 3d at 271 ( not i ng that Demor e

    "speci f i cal l y aut hor i zed such det ent i on i n t he ci r cumst ances

    t her e") . The Demor e Cour t al so br i ef l y di scussed f act s speci f i c

    t o t he det ai nee, such as hi s r equest f or a cont i nuance of hi s

    r emoval hear i ng. 538 U. S. at 531 & n. 15. Taken t oget her ,

    Zadvydas, Demore, and t he i nherent natur e of t he

    "r easonabl eness" i nqui r y wei gh heavi l y agai nst adopt i ng a si x-

    mont h pr esumpt i on of unr easonabl eness.

    From a mor e pr act i cal st andpoi nt , however , t he

    appr oach empl oyed by the Thi r d and Si xth Ci r cui t s has l i t t l e t o

    r ecommend i t . Rei d and hi s ami ci poi nt t o a pl et hor a of

    pr obl ems rai sed by t he met hod. Fi r st , t he appr oach has r esul t ed

    i n wi l dl y i nconsi st ent det er mi nat i ons. See Lor a, 804 F. 3d at

    615 ( col l ect i ng cases and not i ng t hat " t he per vasi ve

    i nconsi st ency and conf usi on exhi bi t ed by di st r i ct cour t s . . .

    when asked to appl y a reasonabl eness t est on a case- by- case

    basi s wei ghs, i n our vi ew, i n f avor of adopt i ng an appr oach t hat

    af f or ds mor e cer t ai nt y and pr edi ctabi l i t y") .

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    22/35

    - 21 -

    Second, t he f ai l ur e t o adopt a br i ght - l i ne r ul e may

    have t he per ver se ef f ect of i ncr easi ng det ent i on t i mes f or t hose

    l east l i kel y to act ual l y be r emoved at t he concl usi on of t hei r

    pr oceedi ngs. See Rodr i guez v. Robbi ns (Rodr i guez I I ) , 804 F. 3d

    1060, 1072 ( 9t h Ci r . 2015) ( "Non- ci t i zens who vi gor ousl y pur sue

    cl ai ms f or r el i ef f r om r emoval f ace subst ant i al l y l onger

    det ent i on per i ods t han t hose who concede removabi l i t y. " ) .

    Mor eover , f eder al habeas l i t i gat i on i t sel f i s bot h compl i cat ed

    and t i me- consumi ng, especi al l y f or al i ens who may not be

    r epr esent ed by counsel . See Lor a, 804 F. 3d at 615 ( " [ A si x-

    mont h] r ul e avoi ds t he random out comes r esul t i ng f r om i ndi vi dual

    habeas l i t i gat i on i n whi ch some det ai nees are repr esent ed by

    counsel and some ar e not , and some habeas pet i t i ons are

    adj udi cat ed i n mont hs and ot her s are not adj udi cat ed f or

    years . ") .

    Thi r d, even cour t s t hat have adopted t he

    i ndi vi dual i zed habeas appr oach have quest i oned t he f eder al

    cour t s' "i nst i t ut i onal compet ence" t o adj udi cat e these i ssues

    and t he consequences of such an i nt erpr etat i on. See Ly, 351

    F. 3d at 272 ( not i ng t hat t he habeas appr oach r ai ses "a quest i on

    of i nst i t ut i onal compet ence" si nce "f eder al cour t s are obvi ousl y

    l ess wel l si t uated t o know how much t i me i s r equi r ed t o br i ng a

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    23/35

    - 22 -

    r emoval pr oceedi ng t o concl usi on") . As t he Thi r d Ci r cui t has

    l ament ed, f eder al cour t s are f aced wi t h a "movi ng t ar get " i n

    such cases because pet i t i oner s presumabl y cannot chal l enge thei r

    det ent i on unt i l i t becomes unr easonabl e, but , even i f t he

    pet i t i oner pr emat ur el y l odges a chal l enge, t he det ent i on may

    become unr easonabl e dur i ng t he pendency of t he cl ai m. See Di op,

    656 F. 3d at 227.

    Mor eover , t he f eder al cour t s' i nvol vement i s

    wast ef ul l y dupl i cat i ve. Not onl y may " t he under l yi ng r emoval

    pr oceedi ngs j ust i f yi ng det ent i on . . . be near i ng r esol ut i on by

    t he t i me a f eder al cour t of appeal s i s pr epar ed t o consi der

    t hem, " i d. , but i t i s al so l i kel y t hat t he evi dence and

    argument s pr esent ed i n a "r easonabl eness" hear i ng bef ore a

    f eder al cour t ar e l i kel y t o over l ap at t he mar gi ns wi t h t he

    evi dence and argument s pr esented at a bond hear i ng bef ore an

    i mmi gr at i on cour t . Thi s i nef f i ci ent use of t i me, ef f or t , and

    r esour ces coul d be especi al l y bur densome i n j ur i sdi ct i ons wi t h

    l ar ge i mmi gr at i on docket s. See Lor a, 804 F. 3d at 615- 16.

    Fi nal l y, Rei d and hi s ami ci st r ess t he har ms suf f er ed

    by det ai nees and t hei r f ami l i es when det ai nees are hel d i n

    pr ol onged det ent i on. Whi l e per haps beyond our j udi ci al

    cogni zance, we do not mean to di mi ni sh t he real , human

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    24/35

    - 23 -

    consequences of bei ng hel d f or pr ol onged per i ods of t i me i n

    ci vi l conf i nement away f r om f ami l y, f r i ends, and l oved ones.

    Despi t e t he pr act i cal advant ages of t he Second and

    Ni nt h Ci r cui t s' appr oach, however , we have surveyed t he l egal

    l andscape and consi der our sel ves dut y- bound t o f ol l ow t he t r ai l

    set out by t he Thi r d and Si xt h Ci r cui t s. A br i ght - l i ne r ul e may

    of f er si gni f i cant benef i t s, but t hese ar e per suasi ve

    j ust i f i cat i ons f or l egi sl at i ve or admi ni st r at i ve3 i nt er vent i on,

    not j udi ci al decr ee. I n t he end, we t hi nk t he Thi r d and Si xt h

    Ci r cui t s' i ndi vi dual i zed appr oach adher es mor e cl osel y t o l egal

    pr ecedent t han t he ext r aor di nar y i nt ervent i on r equest ed by

    Pet i t i oner .

    I n conduct i ng t hi s i ndi vi dual i zed r easonabl eness

    i nqui r y, t he di st r i ct cour t must eval uat e whet her t he al i en' s

    cont i nued det ent i on suf f i ci ent l y ser ves t he cat egor i cal pur pose

    of t he st at ut e. Thi s i s not , as t he gover nment cont ends, si mpl y

    3 To be cl ear , i t i s qui t e possi bl e t hat t he gover nment i sl ess capt i ve t o 1226( c) ' s cat egor i cal command t han i tbel i eves. Because we r ead an i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness l i mi t at i oni nt o t he st at ut e i t sel f , t he st at ut e aut hor i zes a bond hear i ngas soon as cont i nued, mandatory detent i on has r eached t he poi ntof bei ng const i t ut i onal l y unr easonabl e. Whet her ( and how) t hegovernment may r el y upon t hi s i mpl i ci t component of t he st atut et o st r eaml i ne i t s det ent i on pr ocedur es f or al i ens who have beendet ai ned under 1226( c) f or a pr ol onged per i od of t i me poses aquest i on f or anot her day.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    25/35

    - 24 -

    a quest i on of aski ng "whet her t her e ar e si gni f i cant ,

    unj ust i f i abl e del ays i n t he pr oceedi ngs or der ed at t he

    government ' s r equest or ot her evi dence demonst r at i ng t hat t he

    gover nment i s not act i vel y engaged i n pr osecut i on of t he removal

    case. "

    The gover nment ' s vi ew of r easonabl eness f ai l s f or t wo

    r easons. Fi r st , whi l e t he Demor e Cour t di d not f i nd any

    speci f i c dur at i on di sposi t i ve, t he hol di ng was pr emi sed on t he

    not i on t hat pr oceedi ngs woul d be r esol ved wi t hi n a mat t er of

    mont hs, i ncl udi ng any t i me t aken f or appeal by t he det ai nee.

    See 538 U. S. at 529. The maj or i t y emphasi zed t hat " [ t ] he ver y

    l i mi t ed t i me of t he det ent i on at st ake under 1226( c) [ was] not

    mi ssed by t he di ssent , " whi ch r ef er r ed t o pr oceedi ngs t aki ng

    "sever al mont hs. " I d. at 529 n. 12. The maj or i t y t hen empl oyed

    a "but see" ci t at i on wi t h r espect t o t he di ssent ' s war ni ng t hat

    1226( c) coul d r esul t i n a "pot ent i al l y l engt hy det ent i on. "

    I d. Thus, t he Demor e maj or i t y di scl ai med any suggest i on t hat

    i t s deci si on somehow sanct i oned categor i cal cust ody beyond a

    mat t er of mont hs.

    The Thi r d Ci r cui t ' s Di op deci si on provi des a cl ear

    exampl e of why t he gover nment ' s readi ng must f ai l . I n t hat

    case, " [ t ] he Government doggedl y pur sued Di op' s det ent i on and

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    26/35

    - 25 -

    r emoval f or t hr ee year s. " Di op, 656 F. 3d at 228. The

    government di d not "del ay" pr oceedi ngs, and yet t he detent i on

    st i l l r eached an unr easonabl e dur at i on. As t hat cour t not ed,

    " i ndi vi dual act i ons by var i ous act or s i n t he i mmi gr at i on system,

    each of whi ch t akes onl y a reasonabl e amount of t i me t o

    accompl i sh, can never t hel ess r esul t i n t he det ent i on of a

    r emovabl e al i en f or an unr easonabl e . . . per i od of t i me. " I d.

    at 223. Tot al dur at i on mat t er s t o a per son hel d i n ci vi l

    conf i nement , and due process demands a bet t er answer t han "we

    haven' t got t en ar ound t o i t yet . "

    The second probl em wi t h t he gover nment ' s suggest ed

    r eadi ng i s i t s f ai l ur e t o f ocus on t he cat egor i cal nat ur e of t he

    det ent i on. Whi l e det ent i on under 1226( c) undoubt edl y pr event s

    f l i ght and pr ot ect s t he publ i c, t hi s ar gument i nvol ves t he same

    st r at agem used by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i n f i ndi ng bond hear i ngs

    suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y t he i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness requi r ement .

    The basi c pur pose of 1226( c) i s not mer el y f l i ght and danger

    pr event i on. Af t er al l , an al i en who, at a bond hear i ng, i s

    f ound l i kel y t o abscond or har m soci et y coul d cl ear l y r emai n i n

    det ent i on. The speci f i c pur pose of 1226( c) i s t o

    cat egor i cal l y deny bond hear i ngs t o a cl ass of al i ens who may

    pose t hese t hr eat s. An i nqui r y i nt o t he r easonabl eness of

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    27/35

    - 26 -

    cat egor i cal det ent i on must , t her ef ore, be measured by r ef er ence

    t o Congr ess' use of " r easonabl e pr esumpt i ons and gener i c r ul es"

    about danger and f l i ght r i sk. Demor e, 538 U. S. at 526 ( quot i ng

    Fl or es, 507 U. S. at 313) .

    Cat egor i cal det ent i on i s onl y per mi t t ed f or a shor t

    t i me as "a const i t ut i onal l y val i d aspect of t he depor t at i on

    pr ocess. " I d. at 523 ( emphasi s added) . As J ust i ce Kennedy

    not ed i n hi s Demor e concur r ence, t he gover nment ' s cat egor i cal

    deni al of bond hear i ngs i s pr emi sed upon the al i en' s pr esumed

    depor t abi l i t y and the gover nment ' s pr esumed abi l i t y t o reach the

    r emoval deci si on wi t hi n a br i ef per i od of t i me. See i d. at 531

    ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) ( "Whi l e t he j ust i f i cat i on f or 8 U. S. C.

    1226( c) i s based upon t he Government ' s concerns over t he r i sks

    of f l i ght and danger t o the communi t y, t he ul t i mate pur pose

    behi nd the det ent i on i s premi sed upon the al i en' s

    depor t abi l i t y. " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Ly, 351 F. 3d at

    271- 72 ( "The act ual r emovabi l i t y of a cr i mi nal al i en . . . has

    bear i ng on t he reasonabl eness of hi s det ent i on pr i or t o removal

    pr oceedi ngs. " ) . I n ot her wor ds, t her e i s a di f f er ence bet ween

    t he " f or eseeabi l i t y" of pr oceedi ngs endi ng and t he

    " f or eseeabi l i t y" of pr oceedi ngs endi ng adver sel y. As t he

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    28/35

    - 27 -

    l i kel i hood of an i mmi nent r emoval or der di mi ni shes, so t oo does

    t he gover nment ' s i nt er est i n det ent i on wi t hout a bond hear i ng.

    Thus, a cour t l ooki ng t o measur e t he r easonabl eness of

    cont i nued categor i cal detent i on must exami ne t he pr esumpt i ons

    upon whi ch that cat egor i cal t r eat ment was based ( such as br evi t y

    and r emovabi l i t y) . As t he act ual i zat i on of t hese pr esumpt i ons

    gr ows weaker or mor e at t enuat ed, t he cat egor i cal nat ur e of t he

    det ent i on wi l l become i ncr easi ngl y unr easonabl e. For exampl e, a

    cour t mi ght exami ne, i nt er al i a, t he t ot al l engt h of t he

    det ent i on; t he f or eseeabi l i t y of pr oceedi ngs concl udi ng i n t he

    near f ut ur e ( or t he l i kel y dur at i on of f ut ur e det ent i on) ; t he

    per i od of t he det ent i on compar ed t o t he cr i mi nal sent ence; t he

    pr ompt ness ( or del ay) of t he i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es or t he

    det ai nee; and t he l i kel i hood t hat t he pr oceedi ngs wi l l cul mi nat e

    i n a f i nal r emoval or der . 4

    4 These non- exhaust i ve f act or s are si mi l ar t o t hose advancedby t he Ly cour t . See Fl or es- Powel l v. Chadbour ne, 677 F. Supp.2d 455, 471 ( D. Mass. 2010) ( summar i zi ng t he f act or s f r om Ly,351 F. 3d at 271- 72, t hat ar e suggest i ve of unr easonabl e del ay:"( 1) t he over al l l engt h of det ent i on; ( 2) whet her t he ci vi ldet ent i on i s f or a l onger per i od t han t he cr i mi nal sent ence f ort he cr i mes r esul t i ng i n t he depor t abl e st at us; ( 3) whet heract ual r emoval i s r easonabl y f or eseeabl e; ( 4) whet her t hei mmi gr at i on aut hor i t y act ed pr ompt l y t o advance i t s i nt er est s;and ( 5) whet her t he pet i t i oner engaged i n di l at or y t act i cs i nt he I mmi gr at i on Cour t " ) .

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    29/35

    - 28 -

    Two cl ar i f i cat i ons ar e wor t h not i ng her e. Fi r st , t her e i sa di f f er ence bet ween "di l at or y tact i cs" and t he exer ci se of an

    al i en s ri ght s to appeal . As t he Ly cour t not ed:

    [ A] ppeal s and pet i t i ons f or r el i ef ar e t o beexpect ed as a nat ur al par t of t he pr ocess.An al i en who woul d not normal l y be subj ectt o i ndef i ni t e det ent i on cannot be sodetai ned merel y because he seeks t o expl oreavenues of r el i ef t hat t he l aw makesavai l abl e t o hi m. Fur t her , al t hough anal i en may be r esponsi bl e f or seeki ng r el i ef ,he i s not r esponsi bl e f or t he amount of t i met hat such determi nat i ons may t ake. The meref act t hat an al i en has sought r el i ef f r omdepor t at i on does not aut hor i ze t he I NS t odr ag i t s heel s i ndef i ni t el y i n maki ng adeci si on. The ent i r e pr ocess, not mer el yt he or i gi nal depor t at i on hear i ng, i s subj ectt o t he const i t ut i onal r equi r ement ofr easonabi l i t y.

    351 F. 3d at 272. I n Demore, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hatdetent i on f or a number of mont hs r emai ns appr opr i ate " i n t hemi nor i t y of cases i n whi ch t he al i en chooses t o appeal . " 538

    U. S. at 530 ( emphasi s added) . When an al i en appeal s, and t heappeal occur s wi t hi n t hi s l i mi t ed t i mef r ame, a pr esumpt i on ofr emovabi l i t y r emai ns and a pr esumpt i on of pr ompt ness r emai ns.Al t hough t her e may come a t i me when promptness l apses, al i ensmay be det ai ned f or "sever al mont hs" bef or e thi s poi nt i sr eached. I d. at 529 n. 12. Of cour se, t he same l ogi c woul d notappl y i f a det ai nee pr evai l s bef or e an I J and t he gover nmentappeal s. I n such cases, t he pr esumpt i on of ul t i mat er emovabi l i t y i s weakened, r ender i ng t he al i en s cont i nuedcat egor i cal det ent i on f ar l ess r easonabl e. ( Of cour se, an I Jmi ght st i l l f i nd such an al i en t oo r i sky t o r el ease at ani ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng. )

    Second, we t hi nk i t wor t h not i ng t hat t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , i nRodr i guez I I , r ecent l y r ej ect ed a pr oposal t hat an I J consi der"t he l i kel y dur at i on of f ut ur e det ent i on and t he l i kel i hood ofevent ual r emoval " at bond hear i ngs because consi der at i on of

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    30/35

    - 29 -

    Ther e may be ot her f act or s t hat bear on t he

    r easonabl eness of cat egor i cal det ent i on, but we need not st r ai n

    t o devel op an exhaust i ve t axonomy here. We note t hese f act ors

    onl y t o hel p r esol ve t he case bef or e us and t o pr ovi de

    gui depost s f or ot her cour t s conduct i ng such a r easonabl eness

    r evi ew.

    Appl yi ng the rul e we have adopt ed t oday to t he case at

    bar , we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i ndi vi dual i zed hol di ng wi t h

    r espect t o Rei d' s par t i cul ar habeas pet i t i on. I n i t s

    al t er nat i ve hol di ng, t he di st r i ct cour t wei ghed "t he l engt h of

    det ent i on; t he per i od of det ent i on compar ed t o the cr i mi nal

    sent ence; t he f or eseeabi l i t y of r emoval ; t he pr ompt act i on of

    i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es; and whet her t he pet i t i oner engaged i n

    any di l at or y t act i cs. " Rei d I , 991 F. Supp. 2d at 281. The

    cour t al so not ed t hat Rei d had been det ai ned f or f our t een

    mont hs, whi ch was "wel l beyond t he br i ef detai nment cont empl ated

    i n Demor e. " I d. These f act or s apt l y ant i ci pat ed t hose

    t hose f act or s " woul d r equi r e l egal and pol i t i cal anal yses beyondwhat woul d otherwi se be consi dered at a bond hear i ng. " 804 F. 3dat 1089. Whi l e we agr ee t hat t hese f act or s ar e not r el evant ata bond hear i ng, wher e t he f ocus i s on t he al i en s f l i ght andsaf et y ri sk, t hese f act or s ar e r el evant when a f eder al cour t i sconduct i ng a reasonabl eness i nqui r y and determi ni ng whether abond hear i ng needs t o be hel d i n t he f i r st pl ace.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    31/35

    - 30 -

    ar t i cul at ed above, and we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    hol di ng that Rei d' s detent i on had become unr easonabl e under

    1226( c) .

    Moreover , Rei d' s case had al r eady been t hr ough one

    r ound of appeal s and was pendi ng another r ound at t he t i me of

    t he l ower cour t ' s deci si on, maki ng f i nal r esol ut i on "cer t ai nl y

    f ar enough out t o i mpl i cat e due pr ocess concer ns. " I d. at 282.

    None of t hese appeal s i nvol ved "di l at or y t act i cs. " I d. Rat her ,

    Rei d "r ai sed a col or abl e cl ai m agai nst depor t at i on and . . .

    vi gor ousl y cont est [ ed] r emoval . " I d. Fi nal l y, i t shoul d be

    not ed t hat al t hough t he I J ' s i ni t i al or der was adver se t o Rei d,

    t he BI A' s f i r st deci si on, r ender ed al most a year af t er det ent i on

    began, r eversed and r emanded t he I J ' s det ermi nat i on, dr awi ng

    i nt o quest i on Rei d' s pr esumed depor t abi l i t y.

    Wi t h respect t o t he cl ass cl ai ms, however , we must

    vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s summar y j udgment deci si on. The

    di str i ct cour t cert i f i ed a cl ass cons i st i ng of " [ a] l l

    i ndi vi dual s who are or wi l l be detai ned wi t hi n t he Commonweal t h

    of Massachuset t s pur suant t o 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) f or over si x

    mont hs and have not been af f orded an i ndi vi dual i zed bond

    hear i ng. " Rei d v. Donel an, 297 F. R. D. 185, 194 ( D. Mass. 2014) .

    The cour t subsequent l y grant ed summar y j udgment t o t hi s cl ass on

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    32/35

    - 31 -

    t he basi s of i t s pr evi ous deci si ons adopt i ng t he si x- mont h

    br i ght - l i ne r ul e. See Rei d I I , 22 F. Supp. 3d at 88- 89. I t

    t hen exami ned t he appr opr i at e rel i ef , whi ch i ncl uded a request

    by Rei d t hat t he cour t mandat e cer t ai n pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons at

    bond hear i ngs- - pr ot ect i ons t hat exceed t hose cur r ent l y

    cont empl ated by regul at i ons i mpl ement i ng bond hear i ngs under 8

    U. S. C. 1226( a) . The cour t decl i ned t o i mpose t hese addi t i onal

    pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons, concl udi ng t hat due pr ocess di d not

    r equi r e t hem. See i d. at 92- 93. Rei d cr oss- appeal s t hi s

    concl usi on, of f er i ng a bevy of wei ght y const i t ut i onal ar gument s.

    Yet , Rei d' s per sonal si t uat i on does not war r ant

    adj udi cat i on of t hese const i t ut i onal quest i ons. Rei d r ecei ved a

    bond hear i ng pur suant t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s order and was

    gr ant ed bond. He has t hus suf f ered no cogni zabl e harm

    at t r i but abl e t o t he chal l enged pr ocedur es, and t he cl ai m

    per si st s onl y wi t h r espect t o t he cl ass t hat Rei d r epr esent s.

    The probl em, however , i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s adopt i on of

    t he br i ght - l i ne r ul e was an essent i al pr edi cat e t o cl ass

    cer t i f i cat i on. Our rul i ng t oday, r equi r i ng an i ndi vi dual i zed

    appr oach, r emoves t hat pr edi cat e. The cl ass i s t hus

    subst ant i al l y over br oad i n l i ght of our di sposi t i on.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    33/35

    - 32 -

    When a cl ass r epr esent at i ve l acks a l i ve cl ai m, and

    changes i n t he l aw- - whet her t hr ough l egi sl at i ve enact ment , see

    Kr emens v. Bar t l ey, 431 U. S. 119, 130 ( 1977) , or j udi ci al

    deci si on, see Hart man v. Duf f ey, 19 F. 3d 1459, 1470, 1474- 75

    ( D. C. Ci r . 1994) - - cast subst ant i al doubt on t he composi t i on of

    t he cl ass, i t i s appr opr i at e t o r emand f or r econsi der at i on of

    t he cl ass cer t i f i cat i on. Thi s pr udent i al procedur e r ecogni zes

    t hat ser i ous concer ns about pr emat ur e adj udi cat i on of

    const i t ut i onal quest i ons ar i se wher e t he l egi t i macy of a cl ass

    i s cal l ed i nt o quest i on by changes i n t he l aw. See Kr emens, 431

    U. S. at 128, 136- 37; Smook v. Mi nnehaha Count y, 457 F. 3d 806,

    815 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) . Those concerns ar e hei ght ened where, as

    her e, we l ack i nf or mat i on about t he st at us of t he unnamed cl ass

    member s, i ncl udi ng whet her t hey have been af f or ded bond

    hear i ngs, whether any of t hem have been deni ed bond under t he

    chal l enged pr ocedur es, and t he j ust i f i cat i on f or t hose deni al s.

    Remand ( r at her t han di smi ssal ) i s al so f ai r er t o t he cl ass

    members, especi al l y si nce t he government has not appeal ed t he

    cl ass cer t i f i cat i on or der , and we have no br i ef i ng f r om t he

    par t i es about t he i mpact our case- by- case r ul e has on t he cl ass

    as a whol e.

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    34/35

    - 33 -

    On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t may consi der whet her i t

    i s f easi bl e t o r edef i ne the cl ass, excl udi ng t hose cl ass member s

    wi t h moot cl ai ms and subst i t ut i ng cl ass r epr esent at i ves wi t h

    l i ve cl ai ms as appr opr i at e. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23; Kr emens,

    431 U. S. at 134- 35; Har t man, 19 F. 3d at 1474. I t may wel l be

    t hat no sui t abl e cl ass can be f ormed, and t hat t he due pr ocess

    concerns presented by t he bond procedures must be r ai sed by an

    i ndi vi dual deni ed bond under t hese st andar ds, i n whi ch case

    decer t i f i cat i on of t he pr esent cl ass i s t he appr opr i at e cour se.

    See Smook, 457 F. 3d at 815.

    I n concl udi ng, we wi sh t o emphasi ze t hat our

    deci si on t o r ead an i mpl i ci t r easonabl eness r equi r ement i nt o

    1226( c) cannot be read so br oadl y as t o unwi nd 1226( c) ' s

    mandatory detent i on r equi r ement . There i s no doubt t hat a

    chal l enge l i ke Demor e' s woul d st i l l f ai l t oday. Cat egor i cal and

    mandat or y det ent i on f or a br i ef , r easonabl e dur at i on remai ns

    const i t ut i onal , and any chal l enge t o such det ent i on at t he

    out set or ear l y st ages of cat egor i cal cust ody must be di smi ssed

    wi t hout hesi t at i on. As l ong as t he st at ut e r emai ns i n ef f ect ,

    Demore so r equi r es.

    Yet , at a cer t ai n poi nt t he const i t ut i onal i mper at i ves

    of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause begi n t o ecl i pse t he cl ai med

  • 7/25/2019 Reid v. Donelan, 1st Cir. (2016)

    35/35

    - 34 -

    j ust i f i cat i ons f or such br i dl i ng cust odi al power . When t he

    dur at i on of t hi s categor i cal cust ody exceeds r easonabl e bounds,

    t he i mpl i ci t t er ms of t he st at ut e di scl ai m any pr et ense t o

    bol st er t he st at e' s unconst i t ut i onal bi ddi ng. 5

    III. Conclusion

    For t he f oregoi ng r easons, t he j udgment i s AFFI RMED as

    t o Rei d and VACATED as t o t he cl ass member s. Because we r ej ect

    t he si x- mont h pr esumpt i on under l yi ng t he cl ass cer t i f i cat i on and

    j udgment , t he cl ass act i on i s REMANDED f or r econsi der at i on of

    t he cer t i f i cat i on or der i n a manner consi st ent wi t h t hi s

    deci si on.

    5 Because our af f i r mance i n t hi s case i s l i mi t ed t o t hepar t i cul ar f act s pr esent ed by Rei d' s pet i t i on, we have nooccasi on t o consi der her e whet her anot her pet i t i oner mi ght beabl e t o chal l enge t he i ndi vi dual i zed r easonabl eness of hi scont i nued cat egor i cal det ent i on bef or e t he i mmi gr at i on cour t sr at her t han t he f eder al cour t s. The r egul at or y and st at ut or yr egi me does not expl i ci t l y addr ess t he pr opr i et y of such anappr oach, and t he par t i es bef or e us have not f ul l y br i ef ed orargued t he i ssue. Gi ven t he shor t comi ngs of case- by- case habeasr evi ew i dent i f i ed above, however , i t woul d be appr opr i at e f ort he execut i ve ( or t he l egi sl at ur e, as t he case may be) t oconsi der expl i ci t l y per mi t t i ng det ai nees i n t he posi t i on of t hepet i t i oner t o seek a r easonabl eness r evi ew bef or e a f eder alcour t or bef or e an I J mor e f ami l i ar wi t h t he i nt r i caci es of t hecase and t he par t i cul ar s of t he under l yi ng r emoval pr oceedi ngs.