Medley v. Decker

Background

Leon Leonard Medley filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He argued that the revocation of his bond and his later detention violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought a new bond hearing at which the Government would have to prove that he was dangerous or likely to flee.

Medley was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2017 after being placed in removal proceedings for overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. At a March 2018 bond hearing, an immigration judge placed the burden on Medley to show that he was not dangerous or a flight risk. The judge granted bond after finding that Medley met that burden.

After Medley was arrested on state criminal charges in May 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement rearrested him in August 2018. At an October 2018 bond redetermination hearing, the immigration judge again required Medley to prove that he was not dangerous or a flight risk and denied bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision.

The Board later reopened Medley’s removal proceedings after a conviction for possession of marijuana was vacated. The parties agreed that his detention was then governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Government also agreed that Medley could seek a new bond hearing because of the changed circumstances, but it continued to dispute who should bear the burden of proof at that hearing.

Jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because federal law generally bars review of discretionary bond determinations. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Medley was challenging the constitutionality of the procedures used at his bond hearing, rather than merely disagreeing with the immigration judge’s decision. The court therefore concluded that it could review the due-process challenge through the petition.

Burden of proof at the bond hearing

The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the Government—not Medley—to establish at a bond hearing under § 1226(a) that Medley poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. The court reasoned that detention substantially restricts physical liberty and that due process requires the Government to justify that restriction.

The court further held that the Government must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence. It relied on the significant liberty interest at stake, the risk of an erroneous detention decision, and the reasoning of other courts that had addressed the issue.

Disposition

The court granted Medley’s petition. It ordered the respondents to provide a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days. At that hearing, the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Medley is dangerous or likely to flee. If the respondents failed to provide the hearing within that period, the court ordered them to release Medley immediately.

The court denied Medley’s request for oral argument because it resolved the petition on the papers. It did not decide Medley’s additional claims because the ruling on the burden of proof provided the relief he sought. The court also declined to resolve his request for costs and reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act without further briefing.