Doe v. Becerra

Background

John Doe, a noncitizen from Mexico and lawful permanent resident since 2000, was held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody while removal proceedings continued. His removal case was based on convictions under California law for lewd or lascivious acts upon a child and causing great bodily harm to a child. He had been detained for more than two years without a bond hearing.

Doe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a person to challenge unlawful custody. He argued that his continued detention without an individualized hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He requested release within 14 days unless the government scheduled a bond hearing at which it would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was a flight risk or danger to the community.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The respondents argued that the petition belonged in the Eastern District of California because Doe was confined there. They also argued that the facility warden or an assistant field office director, rather than Moises Becerra, was the proper respondent. The court rejected those arguments, relying on its prior decision in a related proceeding involving detention at the same facility. It concluded that the Northern District was the proper forum because Becerra, the Field Office Director for the San Francisco area, had ultimate control over the facility’s immigration operations.

Merits

The parties agreed that Doe was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which generally requires detention of certain noncitizens with specified criminal convictions during removal proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously held that this detention authority permits detention for the brief period ordinarily needed to complete removal proceedings, but the court found Doe’s detention—more than two years without a bond hearing—substantially longer than the periods discussed in that precedent.

The court declined to adopt a bright-line rule that detention becomes unconstitutional after six months. Instead, it applied the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge. That test weighs the detained person’s private interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest and the burdens of providing those safeguards.

The court found that Doe had a strong liberty interest because of the length and uncertain endpoint of his detention. It found significant value in an individualized bond hearing because ICE had not meaningfully reviewed his custody since June 2021 and its denial of his later release request was not a substitute for such a hearing. The government’s interest was neutral at best because a bond hearing would allow detention to continue when the government proved that Doe presented a danger or flight risk.

Disposition

The court held that Doe’s continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. It granted the petition and ordered that an immigration judge conduct a bond hearing within 14 days of the order. At that hearing, the Department of Homeland Security must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Doe is a flight risk or danger to the community to continue his detention.