## Facts

- Rabih Haddad, a native of Lebanon, lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan off and on since 1988.
- Haddad and his family entered the United States in 1998 on six-month tourist visas; one child was born in the United States and is a U.S. citizen.
- The family sought visa extensions; Haddad applied for alien labor certification in April 2001 to pursue adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.
- On December 14, 2001, the INS detained Haddad for overstaying his visa and initiated removal proceedings in Detroit before an immigration judge.
- Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a directive (authorized by the Attorney General) requiring immigration judges to close certain designated “special interest” cases to the press and public, including family members.
- Haddad’s case was designated “special interest.” At a December 19, 2001 bond hearing, security officers announced—without prior notice to Haddad or counsel—that the hearing was closed; the judge required Haddad’s wife and the public to leave.
- Haddad filed a federal civil action challenging the categorical closure of his immigration hearings and sought preliminary injunctive relief; the Government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether a blanket policy closing designated “special interest” removal proceedings to the public and press violates the First Amendment right of access.
2. Whether categorical closure without individualized findings violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements in removal proceedings.
3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to the hearing-closure policy, as distinct from review of any removal decision.
4. Whether the challenged directive exceeded statutory authority and was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.

## Decision

- The court granted Haddad’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court enjoined the Government from closing Haddad’s removal proceedings solely based on the categorical “special interest” directive.
- The court required that any closure be supported by particularized, case-specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating necessity and narrow tailoring.
- The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss, holding that Haddad stated viable constitutional claims and that the court could hear a structural challenge to the closure policy.

## Legal Principles

- Removal proceedings are presumptively open, and the First Amendment right of access extends to such adjudicative proceedings.
- Closure of an otherwise open proceeding requires an overriding governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored, with specific findings supporting closure in the particular case.
- Generalized national-security assertions do not justify categorical secrecy; the government must justify closure on a case-by-case basis.
- Loss of First Amendment access rights constitutes irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunctive relief.
- District courts may adjudicate constitutional challenges to the manner in which removal proceedings are conducted when the suit does not seek review of the merits of any removal determination.

## Conclusion

The court held that a categorical post-September 11 policy closing designated “special interest” removal proceedings could not satisfy First Amendment access requirements without individualized findings, and it issued a preliminary injunction requiring any closure to be justified by case-specific, narrowly tailored determinations.


Haddad v. Ashcroft, 221 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2002)