Jennings v. Rodriguez
138 S. Ct. 830
| SCOTUS | 2018Background
- The case challenges whether 8 U.S.C. §§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) authorize prolonged mandatory detention of certain noncitizens without periodic individual bond hearings. Respondents are a certified class of aliens detained under those provisions (including asylum seekers at the border and aliens in the U.S. after criminal convictions).
- Respondents sought classwide relief requiring periodic (every six months) bond hearings at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified. District Court entered a permanent injunction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed by reading an implicit 6‑month limit into §§1225(b) and 1226(c) and imposing periodic hearings under §1226(a).
- The Government petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review of the statutory-interpretation question and related jurisdictional defenses (§1252(b)(9) and §1226(e)).
- The Court (majority opinion by Justice Alito) held the statutes do not require periodic bond hearings and reversed the Ninth Circuit, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s use of the canon of constitutional avoidance to graft a six‑month limit or mandatory periodic hearings onto the statutory text.
- The Court remanded for the Ninth Circuit to consider respondents’ constitutional claims in the first instance and to reexamine class certification and jurisdictional issues (including §1252(f)(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) implicitly limit detention to six months or otherwise require periodic bond hearings | Rodriguez: §1225(b) does not permit prolonged detention without an individualized periodic bond hearing; courts should read in a 6‑month limit to avoid constitutional problems | Government: §1225(b) plainly mandates detention “for” asylum consideration or a removal proceeding until those proceedings conclude; no textual basis for a 6‑month limit or periodic hearings | Reversed: §1225(b) authorizes detention until the applicable proceedings conclude; no plausible textual ambiguity justifying a judicially imposed 6‑month limit or mandatory periodic hearings |
| Whether §1226(c) contains an implicit six‑month ceiling or requires periodic bond hearings after six months | Rodriguez: §1226(c)’s silence on duration cannot permit prolonged mandatory detention without periodic procedural protections; adopt a 6‑month rule to avoid constitutional doubt | Government: §1226(c) clearly mandates custody of listed criminal aliens and allows release only under the narrow conditions stated; it is not ambiguous and does not support periodic hearings | Reversed: §1226(c) mandates detention pending removal and permits release only under the statutory narrow exceptions; no textual basis for judicially imposed time limit |
| Whether §1226(a) requires periodic (every‑six‑months) bond hearings and that the Government prove by clear and convincing evidence each time that detention remains necessary | Rodriguez: after six months the Government should have to justify continued detention under §1226(a) with heightened procedural protections | Government: §1226(a) authorizes arrest/detention pending a removal decision and authorizes release on bond; nothing in the text mandates periodic hearings or a clear‑and‑convincing proof requirement | Reversed: §1226(a)’s text does not support imposition of periodic bond hearings or the heightened burden the Ninth Circuit imposed |
| Whether jurisdictional limits (§1252(b)(9), §1226(e)) bar district‑court review of respondents’ statutory challenge | Respondents: their suit challenges the statutory framework and is not an attack on a removal order; §1252(b)(9) and §1226(e) do not preclude this review | Government/concurring view: §1252(b)(9) and related provisions severely restrict review of claims arising from removal proceedings; jurisdiction may be lacking | Majority: §1252(b)(9) and §1226(e) do not bar jurisdiction over the statutory‑interpretation challenge here; the Court proceeds to decide the statutory questions and remands constitutional claims to the Ninth Circuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (used by parties/courts as the precedent for reading a six‑month presumptive limit into a detention statute, but distinguished by the Court here)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld mandatory detention under §1226(c) for the limited period necessary to complete removal proceedings; Court relied on Demore to show §1226(c) contemplates detention until proceedings conclude)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (construed §1252 provisions and warned against overly broad readings of jurisdictional bars; cited in jurisdictional discussion)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (explained limits on the constitutional‑avoidance canon: it applies only when text is plausibly ambiguous)
- Tod v. Waldman, 266 U.S. 547 (1925) (historical reference about bail/immigration detention; Court treated it as not deciding a general prohibition on bail for arriving aliens)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (discussed in opinions regarding the constitutional purposes of bail and pretrial detention)