John Doe v. Decker

Background

John Doe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a person in government custody to challenge unconstitutional detention. He also invoked the All Writs Act and the Constitution. The petition alleged that the respondents—Thomas Decker, Chad Wolf, and William Barr, sued in their official capacities—violated the Fifth Amendment by detaining Doe for a prolonged period without a bond hearing.

Doe entered the United States through the Visa Waiver Program in 2012 and stayed beyond his authorized period. He lived in New York, worked as a construction worker, and later became an apartment-building superintendent. He was arrested and charged with federal drug and firearm offenses, cooperated with law enforcement, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced principally to time served and supervised release. After his release from federal criminal custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed him in civil immigration detention, where he remained for more than a year without a bond hearing.

Doe sought protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture because he feared returning to the country from which he had come. His immigration proceedings experienced a nearly five-month delay caused by an administrative error. Later delays involved court and detention-facility restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the lack of confidential attorney-client communication. Doe’s counsel sought several continuances because she could not adequately prepare him for his immigration hearing.

Legal framework

The court analyzed Doe’s detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which generally requires detention for certain noncitizens with specified criminal convictions. The court explained that mandatory detention may be constitutional for a brief period, but continued detention can become unreasonable and violate due process. It applied a fact-specific approach considering: (1) the length of detention; (2) who caused the delays; (3) whether the detainee asserted defenses to removal; (4) how the immigration detention compares with the time spent in criminal custody; and (5) whether the detention facility is meaningfully different from a penal institution.

Merits ruling

The court concluded that Doe’s detention without an individualized bond hearing had become unconstitutional. His detention had lasted more than a year and was likely to continue because his immigration case had not yet reached a completed hearing. The court found that Doe was not responsible for the delays: the initial delay resulted from an administrative error, and later delays largely resulted from pandemic-related restrictions and efforts to obtain adequate attorney preparation time. Doe had also filed a Convention Against Torture claim supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the court found that his detention facility was a county jail with punitive conditions similar to those experienced by people held for criminal sentences.

Required bond-hearing procedures

The court granted in part Doe’s requests for procedural protections. If technologically possible without undue burden on the immigration court, both Doe and his immigration lawyer must be allowed to appear by video. The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Doe presents a flight risk or danger to the public to justify continued detention. The immigration judge must meaningfully consider alternatives to imprisonment, including release on recognizance, parole, or electronic monitoring, and must meaningfully consider Doe’s ability to pay if setting a monetary bond.

The court denied Doe’s request to direct the immigration judge to follow general principles of fairness and to avoid giving undue weight to unreliable evidence. It stated that it had no reason to believe the immigration judge would act unfairly and that evaluating the weight of evidence is within the immigration judge’s discretion.

Disposition

The court’s Opinion and Order states that Doe’s petition is GRANTED IN PART. Within 30 days, the respondents were ordered either to provide Doe with an individualized bond hearing consistent with the opinion or to release him. The court also directed that the opinion be filed under seal temporarily, allowed the parties to propose redactions, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.