Lora v. Shanahan
804 F.3d 601
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Alexander Lora, a lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in 2010 to drug offenses and was sentenced to probation; ICE arrested him more than three years later and detained him without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- Lora sought habeas relief arguing (1) § 1226(c) applies only if DHS takes custody “when the alien is released” (i.e., immediately upon release or only if released from physical custody), and (2) indefinite detention without a bail hearing violates due process.
- The District Court granted relief, ordering a bond hearing; the government appealed, arguing § 1226(c) imposes a duty-triggering (not time-limiting) obligation and urging a fact-specific reasonableness inquiry on detention length.
- The Second Circuit held (a) § 1226(c) applies even when DHS does not take custody immediately after a conviction/release (adopting the BIA’s duty-triggering reading), and (b) to avoid serious due-process concerns, § 1226(c) contains an implicit temporal limit: detainees must receive a bond hearing within six months of detention.
- If detained beyond six months, the detainee is presumptively entitled to bail unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or dangerous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “released” (physical custody requirement) | “Released” requires prior physical incarceration; Lora was never released from post-conviction custody so §1226(c) doesn't apply | “Released” covers non-carceral sentences (probation) and pre-conviction release; qualifying convictions trigger mandatory detention | Court: “Released” includes non-carceral sentences; qualifying conviction + non-incarcerated status can trigger §1226(c) mandatory detention |
| Meaning of “when the alien is released” (temporal immediacy) | “When” imposes a temporal limit—DHS must detain at or around the time of release | “When” is duty-triggering; delay by DHS does not defeat mandatory detention | Court: statute ambiguous; defer to BIA — duty-triggering construction adopted (delay does not negate duty to detain) |
| Whether §1226(c) permits indefinite detention without bail | Indefinite detention without bond violates due process given prolonged backlogs and individual defenses | Government accepts a constitutional limit but favors a fact-specific reasonableness test rather than a bright-line rule | Court: To avoid constitutional problems, read §1226(c) to require a bond hearing within six months; after six months detainee presumptively entitled to bail unless government proves flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence |
| Standard for post-six-month custody | N/A (Lora seeks bail hearing) | Government favors case-by-case balancing (all circumstances) | Court adopts bright-line six-month presumption (follow Ninth Circuit), rejecting pure case-by-case as administrable standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (upholding brief mandatory detention during removal proceedings)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (establishing constitutional concern with indefinite post-removal detention and adopting a six-month presumptive reasonableness rule)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (Ninth Circuit adopting six-month rule and clear-and-convincing standard for continued mandatory detention)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (Third Circuit favoring fact-specific reasonableness inquiry under constitutional-avoidance canon)
- Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (statutory timing commands are not necessarily jurisdictional and do not automatically bar later action)
- United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (government may detain pending trial despite statutory timing language for judicial action)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (courts generally should not impose coercive sanctions for noncompliance with statutory timing absent clear consequence)