Jose German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctiona
965 F.3d 203
3rd Cir.2020Background
- Jose German Santos, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania (late 2017) to possession with intent to deliver; immigration authorities detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- An immigration judge ordered removal; the Board affirmed, the Government asked this Court to remand for reconsideration, and the Board later reversed and remanded, producing further proceedings.
- Santos remained detained in a county correctional facility in conditions the Government described as essentially punitive (confined ~23 hours/day), and by decision date had been detained over two-and-a-half years without a bond hearing.
- Santos filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming his prolonged detention under § 1226(c) violated due process and seeking a bond hearing; the district court denied relief relying on Jennings v. Rodriguez.
- The Third Circuit held Santos’s continued detention unreasonable and ordered a bond hearing within ten days, explaining that Jennings did not foreclose as-applied due-process challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jennings eliminated as-applied due-process challenges to § 1226(c) detention | Santos: Jennings did not eliminate Diop/Chavez-Alvarez constitutional framework; as-applied claims remain | Government: Jennings abrogated those precedents so § 1226(c) authorizes detention without periodic bond hearings | Court: Jennings foreclosed the statutory saving construction but did not extinguish as-applied due-process challenges; Diop/Chavez-Alvarez remain binding on constitutional question |
| Whether Santos’s detention had become unreasonable under due process | Santos: >2.5 years detained, likely to continue, agency legal errors caused delay, prisonlike conditions — merits bond hearing | Government: Delay attributable to appeals and ongoing proceedings; detention still serves legitimate immigration purposes | Court: Detention unreasonable — duration, likelihood of continued detention, and punitive conditions weigh for Santos; reasons for delay neutral |
| Remedy once detention is unreasonable | Santos: entitlement to individualized bond hearing where Government must justify continued detention | Government: argued detainee should bear burden to show he is not a flight risk/danger | Court: Santos entitled to a bond hearing to determine necessity of continued detention |
| Who bears burden and what standard at § 1226(c) bond hearing | Santos: Government must justify continued detention | Government: Detainee should bear burden | Court: Government bears burden of persuasion and must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld §1226(c) facially based on Government’s representation that detention is brief)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (as-applied rule: due process requires a bond hearing once detention becomes unreasonable)
- Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) (articulated factors and tipping point for when bond hearing is required)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (rejected reading of §1226(c) that statutorily limits detention but reserved constitutional claims)
- Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018) (held clear-and-convincing standard appropriate for prolonged post-order detention under §1231(a)(6))
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (framework for selecting burden-of-proof when serious liberty interests are at stake)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (civil detention after a final removal order and limits on post-order detention)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (recognition that serious deprivations of liberty justify higher proof standards)