Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Charles Demore, District Director, San Francisco District Of Immigration And Naturalization Service, Et Al. v. Hyung Joon Kim

• 2002 • 538 U.S. 510 • Rehnquist Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Charles Demore, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Hyung Joon Kim (2002) revolved around the issue of mandatory detention for certain deportable aliens under 8 U.S.C §1226(c). The respondent, Hyung Joon Kim - a lawful permanent resident in the United States but convicted on charges that made him removable from the country - challenged his detention without bail during removal proceedings as unconstitutional....Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 2002
Docket: 01-1491
538 U.S. 510
123 S. Ct. 1708
155 L. Ed. 2d 724
2003 U.S. LEXIS 3428
Argued: Jan 15, 2003

Charles Demore, District Director, San Francisco District Of Immigration And Naturalization Service, Et Al. v. Hyung Joon Kim

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Questions presented:
SCOTUS Records

01-1491 DEMORE v. KIM Ruling below: CA 9, 276 F.3d 523. QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1226(c)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code requires the Attorney General to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States because they have committed a specified offense, including an aggravated felony. Section 1226(c)(2) of Title 8 prohibits release of those aliens during administrative proceedings to remove them from the United States, except in very limited circumstances not present here. The question presented in this case is: Whether respondent's mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States. CERT. GRANTED: 6/28/02

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Charles Demore, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Hyung Joon Kim (2002) revolved around the issue of mandatory detention for certain deportable aliens under 8 U.S.C §1226(c). The respondent, Hyung Joon Kim - a lawful permanent resident in the United States but convicted on charges that made him removable from the country - challenged his detention without bail during removal proceedings as unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of DeMore by a 5-4 vote stating that such detentions are constitutionally permissible to prevent flight risk and danger to community while deportation proceedings are ongoing. This ruling upheld Congress's authority to make rules concerning immigration policy including mandatory detentions during removal procedures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of the case Charles Demore, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Hyung Joon Kim (2002), Justice Souter argued that mandatory detention without bail for deportable aliens with criminal records was unconstitutional. He contended that it violated due process rights because it did not provide a chance to demonstrate that they were neither flight risks nor dangers to society before being detained. The majority's reliance on Congress' judgment about detainee riskiness was deemed insufficient by him as he believed individualized determinations should be made in each case rather than blanket assumptions based on past crimes committed by other individuals who are similarly situated. Furthermore, he criticized the government’s argument regarding administrative convenience and efficiency as an inadequate reason for denying basic constitutional protections.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: Apr 29, 2003
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms