Goodwin
CHARLESTON – A federal judge has threatened contempt proceedings and sanctions if officials continue to ignore “binding” rulings regarding the illegal detention of non-citizens by immigration agents.
In seven similar opinions issued February 27, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ordered the release of immigrants for due process violations. But in one of them, Goodwin was very critical of federal and state officials for the continued practice of indefinitely jailing non-citizens arrested in West Virginia.
In the case of Honduran national Miguel Antonio Dominguez Izaguirre, Goodwin noted how he and other federal judges in the Southern District of West Virginia have repeatedly ruled these detention practices are unconstitutional.
“This Memorandum Opinion and Order serves as explicit notice to all officials — state and federal — involved in the detention of individuals whose cases come before this court,” Goodwin wrote. “Continued detention without individualized custody determinations, after this court’s repeated holdings that such detention violates the Fifth Amendment, will result in legal consequences.
“For state jail officials, those consequences include personal civil liability without qualified immunity protection. For federal officials, those consequences include exercise of this court’s full inherent authority to enforce constitutional compliance including contempt.
“Officials who believe this court has erred in its constitutional analysis may seek stay of this court’s orders pending appeal or pursue appellate review. What they may not do is continue systematic constitutional violations while preserving appellate objections and expecting this court to grant relief in case after case without enforcing its rulings.
“This court will enforce the Constitution.”
Goodwin does not attorneys appearing in his court on behalf of the federal defendants have been “responsive and professional,” saying it’s clear they “are aware of the law of this district and how it affects the government’s argument.
“The problem lies in the attorneys’ clients, federal government actors, who have offered no evidence that they have seen or even care about the legal rulings of this district,” Goodwin wrote. “The disregard for the law shames every hard-working public servant who toils for the benefit of the country and its people.”
He also says the South Central Regional Jail in Charleston accepts physical custody of the immigrant petitioners “under circumstances and practices already declared unconstitutional by this court and judges in this district.”
“Jail officials act pursuant to state law, and under color of state law, are depriving each of these petitioners their right to liberty, a clearly established constitutional right,” Goodwin wrote. “After this court’s and this district’s multitude of rulings, state officials are clearly on notice, and the petitioners’ liberty interests have clearly been established.”
In the order, Goodwin notes several similar recent cases in the Southern District. The petitioner typically enters the country unlawfully, end up at a processing center and are released on the condition their immigration status will be renewed. Because being in the country in that manner typically is a civil violation and not a crime, and immigration law is handled by civil immigration courts not criminal courts.
These petitioners are in the immigration system, but they are stopped by U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents in West Virginia and sent to jail without being charged criminally.
Izaguirre’s case is one of 17 assigned to Southern District judges last week.
“How can that be?” Goodwin wrote. “Even now, the government incredulously asserts that the federal district courts do not have jurisdiction, that petitioners cannot raise due process violations, and that the government has authority to mandatorily and indefinitely detain noncitizens in the local jail.
“The government is wrong.”
Goodwin mentions several cases heard and decided by himself and other Southern District judges with the same results.
“The holdings in those cases, particularly the constitutional interpretations, are not passing observations,” he wrote. “They are constitutional rulings, and they govern the conduct of federal officers operating within the jurisdiction of this court.
“Constitutional rulings of federal district courts are not advisory opinions. They are binding law within this jurisdiction unless and until reversed. Government officials — federal and state — subject to this court’s jurisdiction are required to conform their conduct to this court’s constitutional rulings.
“This court possesses inherent authority to enforce its constitutional determinations and will not permit systematic violations to continue while awaiting appellate resolution. Once a federal court has declared particular conduct unconstitutional, the court possesses equitable authority to prevent the same defendants from engaging in the same unconstitutional conduct again.
“That authority rests not on judicial innovation but on the necessity of making constitutional judgments effective. A constitutional ruling cannot be reduced to a temporary directive that must be relitigated each time the same conduct recurs.
“If officials could repeat practices already determined to be unconstitutional and require each affected person to begin anew, constitutional adjudication would become provisional, and judicial power would be reduced to commentary. The Constitution does not contemplate violations in installments.”
Goodwin said the court “will not permit constitutional violations to proceed piecemeal while officials await appellate reversal of rulings they are presently bound to obey.”
“If systematic violations continue despite repeated judicial findings of unconstitutionality, this court will employ the full range of its inherent authority, including (1) injunctive relief prohibiting detention without individualized custody determinations, (2) contempt proceedings against officials who defy this court’s orders or constitutional rulings, (3) monetary sanctions against responsible officials, and (4) any other such other relief as may be necessary to vindicate constitutional rights and enforce this court’s rulings,” Goodwin wrote.
“The Constitution requires immediate compliance with judicial determinations, not continuation of violations pending appeal.”
Izaguirre entered the United States in 2016 and currently lives in Virginia with his two children who are U.S. citizens. He was arrested and detained by ICE agents near Summersville on February 14.
Goodwin ordered Izaguirre to be released immediately from SCRJ and said officials are prohibited from re-arresting and detaining him without “significant change in circumstances to justify detention.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 2:26-cv-00121
