Black v. Decker G.M. v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133

Carol Williams Black and Keisy G.M., both lawful permanent residents, were detained by the U.S. government under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without bond hearings during ongoing removal proceedings, for seven months (Black) and twenty-one months (G.M.).
Both petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the prolonged detentions without bond hearings violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The district court granted habeas and required a bond hearing for Black, but denied relief to G.M.; both parties appealed their respective adverse rulings.
The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), mandates detention for certain noncitizens based on past criminal convictions, with no explicit right to a bond hearing nor time limit on detention.
The Supreme Court has previously upheld the facial constitutionality of mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for the limited period of removal proceedings, but has left unresolved the constitutional requirements for prolonged detention without hearings.
The Second Circuit here reviewed de novo whether due process requires bond hearings for prolonged § 1226(c) detentions, and established the applicable legal standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does due process prohibit unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing?	Yes—prolonged detention must be justified by individualized review.	Only in extraordinary cases—not required as a rule.	Yes—due process prohibits unreasonably prolonged detention without a bond hearing.
Should courts apply a bright-line rule (e.g., 6-month cap) or a case-by-case analysis?	Plaintiffs preferred a 6-month rule for mandatory hearings.	Case-by-case approach is correct; no constitutional basis for a time cap.	Case-by-case analysis under Mathews v. Eldridge is required; no bright-line rule.
What is the appropriate framework for analyzing procedural protections?	Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test governs.	Mathews does not apply; Demore controls.	Mathews framework applies to determine when and what procedures are due.
Who bears the burden at a bond hearing, and what must the IJ consider?	Government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence; IJ must consider ability to pay and alternatives.	Noncitizen must prove eligibility for release.	Government must justify detention by clear and convincing evidence; IJ must consider ability to pay and alternatives.

Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (Upholding facial constitutionality of mandatory detention during brief removal proceedings but not addressing prolonged detention)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (Rejecting a statutory six-month limit on detention but remanding for constitutional analysis)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (Statute implicitly limits post-removal detention to a reasonable period; indefinite detention raises due process concerns)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Establishing the three-factor balancing test for procedural due process analysis)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Pretrial detention is constitutional only when justified under heightened evidentiary standards)