Reid v. Decker

Background

Everod Reid filed a petition challenging his detention by federal immigration authorities under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that his detention without a bond hearing had become unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of liberty without due process. He sought immediate release or an individualized hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

Reid is a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1985 and had lived in the United States for nearly 35 years. The opinion describes three convictions: a 1995 federal conviction for selling stolen firearms, a 2000 New Jersey conviction for possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and a 2019 New York conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. His immigration proceedings began in 1995 and continued for more than 25 years, including removal proceedings, appeals, remands, and applications for discretionary immigration relief.

Reid was arrested by immigration authorities on August 16, 2018. He spent approximately three months in immigration detention, was transferred to local criminal custody from November 2018 through April 2019, and then returned to immigration detention. By the time of the opinion, he had spent approximately ten additional months in immigration custody. His immigration case was still pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, so his removal order was not final.

Legal framework

The court explained that federal law generally permits detention while removal proceedings are pending. Section 1226(c), however, requires detention for certain categories of noncitizens, including some people convicted of controlled-substance, firearm, or other specified offenses. The Supreme Court had upheld the statute’s general constitutionality but had also recognized that continued detention could become unreasonable or unjustified and require an individualized decision about flight risk and danger to the public.

The court rejected a fixed rule that detention automatically becomes unconstitutional after six months. Instead, following persuasive decisions from other courts, it adopted a fact-specific approach. The court considered five factors: the length of detention; whether the detained person caused the delay; whether the person had asserted defenses to removal; whether immigration detention exceeded the prison time for the crime supporting removal; and whether the detention facility differed meaningfully from a criminal jail.

Application to Reid

The court found that the length of Reid’s detention strongly supported a bond hearing because he had been detained for more than a year and his detention was likely to continue while his appeal proceeded. Delays were attributable to both Reid and the government, but the court found that they were not unwarranted and that Reid had not been trying to manipulate the process to delay removal.

The court also found that Reid had raised non-frivolous issues concerning his application for a waiver under section 212(c) and that his removal order was not final because of his pending appeal. The court noted that Reid had served approximately six months for the 2019 offense underlying his current removal case, while his immigration detention had lasted more than twice as long. Finally, the court found that the Hudson County Correctional Facility was not meaningfully different from a criminal jail because it was itself a penal institution.

Considering all of these factors together, the court held that Reid’s continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated due process.

Required bond-hearing procedures

The court granted Reid’s request that the government bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he posed a flight risk or a danger to the public. It also required the immigration judge to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention, including release on recognizance, parole, or electronic monitoring, and to meaningfully consider Reid’s ability to pay if setting a monetary bond.

The court did not require that Reid be produced in person for the hearing. It left the implementation of procedural safeguards to the immigration judge, who had experience with Reid’s case and concerns about his competency. The court also denied Reid’s request to direct the immigration judge not to give undue weight to allegations underlying dismissed criminal charges. It held that the immigration judge could decide what weight to give available evidence, including conduct that did not result in a conviction.

Immediate-release request and disposition

While the petition was pending, Reid separately asked the court to order his immediate release based on the court’s inherent authority. The court expressed sympathy for his circumstances but denied that request, concluding that Reid had not shown extraordinary circumstances making immediate release necessary to make the court’s relief effective, particularly because the court was ordering a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.

In the conclusion, the court stated that Reid’s petition was granted. It ordered the respondents, within fourteen days of the opinion and order, either to provide Reid with an individualized bond hearing consistent with the ruling or release him. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.