Term: 2017
Docket: 15-1204
Jennings v. Rodriguez
- Pro
15-1204 JENNINGS V. RODRIGUEZ DECISION BELOW: 804 F.3d 1060 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), inadmissible aliens who arrive at our Nation's borders must be detained, without a bond hearing, during proceedings to remove them from the country. Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), certain criminal and terrorist aliens must be detained, without a bond hearing, during removal proceedings. Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), other aliens may be released on bond during their removal proceedings, if the alien demonstrates that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. 8 C.F.R. 236.1(c)(8). Aliens detained under Section 1226(a) may receive additional bond hearings if circumstances have changed materially. 8 C.F.R. 1003.19 (e). The questions presented are: 1. Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months. 2. Whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months. 3. Whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226 (c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; whether the length of the alien's detention must be weighed in favor of release; and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-56706, 13-56755 ORDER OF December 15, 2016: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1) WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT ALIENS SEEKING ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY DETENTION UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) MUST BE AFFORDED BOND HEARINGS, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE INTO THE UNITED STATES, IF DETENTION LASTS SIX MONTHS. 2) WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT CRIMINAL OR TERRORIST ALIENS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY DETENTION UNDER SECTION 1226(c) MUST BE AFFORDED BOND HEARINGS, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE, IF DETENTION LASTS SIX MONTHS. 3) WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT, IN BOND HEARINGS FOR ALIENS DETAINED FOR SIX MONTHS UNDER SECTIONS 1225(b), 1226(c), OR 1226(a), THE ALIEN IS ENTITLED TO RELEASE UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATES BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE ALIEN IS A FLIGHT RISK OR A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER THE LENGTH OF THE ALIEN’S DETENTION MUST BE WEIGHED IN FAVOR OF RELEASE, AND WHETHER NEW BOND HEARINGS MUST BE AFFORDED AUTOMATICALLY EVERY SIX MONTHS. 6/26/2017: THIS CASE IS RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR FOR REARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 6/20/2016
The U.S. Supreme Court case Jennings v. Rodriguez, 2017 revolved around the issue of whether detained immigrants have the right to periodic bond hearings during their detention. Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident in the United States who was detained for three years without a bond hearing while his deportation proceedings were ongoing, challenged this practice as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court had previously ruled that immigration detainees must receive automatic bond hearings every six months and could only be held if they are deemed dangerous or flight risks at these hearings. However, in February 2018, by a 5-3 majority decision (Justice Kagan recused herself), the Supreme Court overturned this ruling stating that nothing in US immigration law suggests any entitlement to periodic bond hearings during an immigrant's detention period. The court did not rule on constitutional grounds but sent back those issues for further consideration by lower courts.
In the dissenting opinion for Jennings v. Rodriguez, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and inhumane. They contended that prolonged detention without a bail hearing violates due process rights under the Constitution. The dissenters pointed out historical precedents where courts have interpreted laws to avoid constitutional problems unless Congress clearly intended otherwise - which they believe is not clear in this case. They also emphasized on human impact of indefinite detention on immigrants who are often asylum seekers or long-term residents with American families but lack legal status. Furthermore, they noted that many detainees would likely be granted bail if given a hearing as most aren't dangerous or flight risks; hence their continued detention seems unnecessary and unjustified.
