Litigation

Cenesca v. Feeley: Fighting Prolonged Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention

This case challenges the U.S. government’s practice of coercing Black immigrants into accepting deportation by locking them in indefinite immigration detention and prolonged solitary confinement.

Mr. Cenesca is a man from Haiti fighting deportation from immigration detention, where he has been held for three years. While detained, a guard assaulted Mr. Cenesca with such ferocity that he was left in a wheelchair. After the government denied medical care for his injuries, he protested with a hunger strike. He was then locked in solitary confinement in retaliation for advocating for medical care.

Mr. Cenesca is one of over 45,000 people a day in immigration detention, a nationwide network of remote private prisons and jails isolated from legal assistance groups. The U.S. government’s own investigators describe conditions of confinement in immigration detention as “barbaric” and “negligent.” And Black people in immigration detention are six times more likely than others to be held in solitary confinement.

People in immigration detention are fighting deportation in proceedings before an immigration judge, many of them seeking asylum, protection from torture, and other forms of humanitarian immigration status. Over 70 percent of people detained by immigration authorities are held in mandatory detention, meaning the government denies them a hearing before a judge to request release, even if they can prove they are not a danger to the community or flight risk. As a result, some people are held in immigration detention for years, with no end in sight.

What is the legal argument in this case?

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects everyone from arbitrary detention, citizens and non-citizens alike. This constitutional right means people in prolonged immigration detention must be released unless the government can justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence in a hearing before a neutral adjudicator.

What is the status of this case?

A federal district court found that Mr. Cenesca’s prolonged immigration detention violated his constitutional right to due process. The court ordered the government to present clear and convincing evidence of the need for his detention at a bond hearing with an immigration judge.

The district court emphasized “the onerous circumstances of [Mr. Cenesca’s] detention, including repeated placement in solitary confinement,” finding it to “be unreasonable and unconstitutional.”