Doe v. Garland

Background

J.P. is a Mexican citizen who has been in the United States since he was a few months old. He was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on October 29, 2021, after being released from state custody on a voluntary-manslaughter conviction. He was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which provides for mandatory detention of certain noncitizens with criminal convictions.

J.P. had been detained for 21 months without an individualized hearing to determine whether he posed a flight risk or danger to the community. His immigration appeal remained pending after an Immigration Judge denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and ordered his removal to Mexico.

J.P. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute that allows a federal court to review certain unlawful detention. He asked the court to order his release or require a bond hearing at which the government would have to justify continued detention. The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that J.P. was not entitled to release or a bond hearing.

Jurisdiction

The court held that it had jurisdiction to consider J.P.’s challenge to his immigration detention. It explained that Ninth Circuit precedent allows district courts to review immigration-detention challenges that are independent of the underlying removal order. The court also stated that the Director of the San Francisco Field Office was a proper respondent within the court’s jurisdiction.

Due-Process Analysis

The court applied the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge to decide whether J.P.’s detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. The test considers the person’s private interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest.

First, the court found that J.P. had a strong liberty interest because he had been detained for 21 months and faced uncertainty about when his removal proceedings would end. The court rejected the argument that his interest was reduced because he was removable after criminal convictions, explaining that the relevant choice was between imprisonment and supervised release, not between imprisonment and living without restrictions in the United States.

Second, the court found a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty because J.P. had never received a bond hearing evaluating whether continued civil detention was necessary. The court determined that an individualized hearing would provide substantial additional protection.

Third, the court found that the government’s interest in conducting immigration enforcement did not explain why it should be allowed to detain J.P. without a hearing. The respondents did not show that providing a hearing after 21 months would undermine detention of people who pose a flight risk or danger.

Based on these factors, the court held that J.P.’s continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights. The court did not decide whether to adopt a fixed six-month rule requiring bond hearings for people detained under § 1226(c), because it resolved J.P.’s claim under the balancing test.

Burden of Proof and Disposition

The court also decided who would bear the burden at the required hearing. It followed Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified. The court concluded that this rule applied here because J.P. had a substantial liberty interest and the cited later precedent had not decided whether that earlier rule remained applicable to § 1226(c) cases.

The court granted J.P.’s petition in part. It ordered the government to provide a constitutionally sufficient bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of the order. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that J.P. is a flight risk or danger to the community. If the immigration judge does not issue a decision within 14 days after the hearing, J.P. must be released from detention.