## Facts

- Twenty civil immigration detainees held at York County Prison and Pike County Correctional Facility alleged medical vulnerability to COVID-19.
- The detainees filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate release, claiming continued confinement during the pandemic posed an imminent risk of serious harm and violated constitutional rights.
- They simultaneously sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing immediate release.
- The district court granted a TRO ordering immediate release, finding irreparable harm and likely success on the merits, minimal harm to the Government, and a strong public interest in release.
- The district court’s release order initially had a near-term expiration date but, after reconsideration proceedings, the court denied reconsideration, lifted a stay, and ordered release to continue until the COVID-19 emergency was resolved.
- The Government filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s authority and arguing the release order would cause serious and irreversible consequences.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s orders labeled as a TRO compelling immediate release were, in substance, appealable preliminary injunctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
2. Whether the release orders had the practical effect of an injunction with serious, perhaps irreparable consequences that could be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
- The court treated the district court’s “TRO” as the functional equivalent of a preliminary injunction because it granted the ultimate relief sought (release) and altered the status quo.
- The court concluded the orders carried serious, potentially irreparable consequences for the Government, including difficulty re-detaining released individuals.
- The published opinion addressed only appellate jurisdiction and did not decide the detainees’ constitutional claims on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- For § 1292(a)(1), an order’s label is not dispositive; courts assess the order’s nature and effect.
- A TRO may be treated as an appealable preliminary injunction when it effectively grants ultimate relief and materially alters the status quo.
- Interlocutory jurisdiction exists when an order has the practical effect of granting injunctive relief, threatens serious, perhaps irreparable consequences, and can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal.
- Indefinite or open-ended relief pending resolution of an emergency supports characterizing an order as a preliminary injunction rather than short-term, stopgap relief.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a district court order styled as a TRO but requiring immediate, potentially indefinite release of immigration detainees during COVID-19 was appealable under § 1292(a)(1) because it functioned as a preliminary injunction with serious consequences not remediable through post-judgment review.


Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 956 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2020)