Jennings v. Rodriguez

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: February 27, 2018
  • Case #: 15-1204
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which ROBERTS, C.J., and KENNEDY, J., joined. THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all parts but Part II. SOTOMAYOR, J., joined Part III (C). THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which GORSUCH, J., joined as to all parts but footnote 6. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which GINSBURG, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
  • Full Text Opinion

Aliens detained under 8 U.S.C. §§1225(b)(1),(2) and 8 U.S.C. §1226(a) do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

8 U.S.C. §§1225(b)(1) and (2) authorize immigration officers to detain aliens at their point of entry to determine their eligibility to enter the United States. Section 1 authorizes the expedited deportation of an alien without review unless the alien seeks asylum or fears persecution. Section 2 detainees are permitted a removal hearing during which an immigration officer will determine whether they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission [to the United States].” §1226(a) allows immigration officers to detain and remove aliens already in the country for committing certain criminal offenses. Respondent, a permanent resident convicted of auto theft and drug crimes, filed a habeas petition while awaiting the outcome of his removal appeal. Respondent’s habeas petition along with those of other detained aliens were consolidated into a class. The class argued that immigration officers violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by detaining them for “prolonged” periods of time, without bond hearings. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found for Respondent through a misapplication of the Constitutional avoidance canon and the attempt to incorporate a “six-month reasonableness limitation” into the law, which the Court interpreted as an impermissible use of the canon to create new law. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search