Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Jennings v. Rodriguez

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Jennings v. Rodriguez
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: November 30, 2016
Reargued: October 3, 2017
Decided: February 27, 2018
Outcome
9th Circuit reversed
Vote
5 - 3 to reverse
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor


Jennings v. Rodriguez is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was first held during the court's October 2016 term on November 30, 2016. On June 26, 2017, at the end of the court's 2016 term, the court announced that the case would be restored to the calendar for the 2017 term. Reargument in the case was held on October 3, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

At issue was whether the government could indefinitely detain plaintiffs challenging a government decision on immigration status or whether a judicial bond hearing must be granted beginning at six months and held every six months thereafter. On August 26, 2016, then-acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn informed the Supreme Court that the solicitor general's office "underestimated the average time that illegal immigrants spent in detention while waiting to appeal their case. The solicitor general’s office had told the court in 2003 that the average detention time was four months. ... average detention time was actually more than a year." A November 2016 Bloomberg report indicated that 41,000 individuals were held in immigration detention facilities.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The U.S. government challenged a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment requiring bond hearings after six months for non-citizen aliens detained by the government.
  • The issue: Does the U.S. Code require bond hearings for non-citizen aliens detained longer than six months?
  • The outcome: 9th Circuit reversed, 5 - 3.


    • In brief: Under various provisions of Chapter 8 of the U.S. Code, the U.S. government detains inadmissible non-citizen aliens without bond pending deportation proceedings. While individuals accused of criminal or terrorist activities are denied bond hearings, certain individuals held under civil (i.e., non-criminal) detention may be released on bond if they do not present a flight risk or a danger to the community. The government challenged a judgment from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a district court order requiring bond hearings every six months for all aliens detained regardless of charges.

    Argument in the case was first held during the court's October 2016 term on November 30, 2016. On June 26, 2017, at the end of the court's 2016 term, the court announced that the case would be restored to the calendar for the 2017 term. Reargument in the case was held on October 3, 2017. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision on February 27, 2018.[3]

    You can review the 9th Circuit's opinion here.[4]

    Background

    This case presented an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. That court had issued judgments on three different occasions throughout the procedural history of this case. This was the first instance where the case has come to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    On May 16, 2007, Alejandro Garcia filed for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking relief from his detention by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pending proceedings regarding his potential removal from the United States. Garcia's case was consolidated with another case filed by Alejandro Rodriguez, the named respondent in this appeal. Garcia and Rodriguez petitioned the district court for certification to proceed as a putative class of litigants in order to file class-action litigation against DHS. The district court denied class certification in March 2008, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that each requirement for class certification under federal rules of civil procedure had been met, namely that "the government conceded that the class was sufficiently numerous; each class member’s claim turned on the common question of whether detention for more than six months without a bond hearing raises serious constitutional concerns; Rodriguez’s claims were sufficiently typical of the class’s because 'the determination of whether [he] is entitled to a bond hearing will rest largely on interpretation of the statute authorizing his detention'; and Rodriguez, through his counsel, adequately represented the class."[4]

    On remand, the district court certified a class of litigants for civil litigation as,[4]

    “

    all non-citizens within the Central District of California who: (1) are or were detained for longer than six months pursuant to one of the general immigration detention statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including judicial review, (2) are not and have not been detained pursuant to a national security detention statute, and (3) have not been afforded a hearing to determine whether their detention is justified. [5]

    		”

    Further, the district court approved four distinct subclasses corresponding to the four statutory provisions under which members of the class were detained. Those subclasses were detained under the following provisions of Chapter 8 of the U.S. Code:[6][7][8]

    • 1. § 1225(b): governing the inspection of aliens for admission into the United States
    • 2. § 1226(a): providing for the arrest, detention, and release of aliens on a warrant issued by the U.S. Attorney General
    • 3. § 1226(c): governing the detention of criminal aliens
    • 4. § 1231(a): providing for the detention, release, and removal of aliens ordered removed from the United States


    On September 13, 2012, the district court entered a preliminary injunction applied to all members of subclasses § 1225(b) and § 1226(c). Under the injunction, the government was required to provide bond hearings to each detainee within the class before an immigration judge and to release each subclass member from detention unless the government could show the detainee was a flight risk or a danger to the community through "clear and convincing evidence." The government appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, who affirmed the district court's injunction on appeal.[4]

    On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the entire class of litigants and entered a permanent injunction against the government. The injunction required the government to provide a bond hearing to any class member who had been subject to "prolonged detention", defined as longer than six months, and to require "clear and convincing evidence" that the detainee was either flight risk or a danger to a community in order for the government to justify continued detention. The government appealed the district court's permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]

    On appeal, the government argued that the district court, and the Ninth Circuit, "erred in applying the canon of constitutional avoidance to the each of the statutes at issue ... The government argues that none of the subclasses are categorically entitled to bond hearings after six months of detention. Accordingly, the government contends that we should decertify the class and instead permit as-applied challenges to individual instances of prolonged detention, which could occur only through habeas proceedings."[4]

    The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. After determining that detention under the statute was unconstitutionally unreasonable after six months, the court upheld the proceedings as directed by the district court's injunction except for the subclass covered under § 1231(a), holding that members of that subclass had not been "ordered removed" and, thus, § 1231(a) was inapplicable to them. For § 1231(a) detainees, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment.[4]

    The Ninth Circuit further held that immigration judges must consider "the length of a non-citizen's past and likely future detention and, relatedly, the likelihood of eventual removal from the United States", requirements that the district court did not impose on immigration judges in granting summary judgment and imposing the permanent injunction.[4]

    The Ninth Circuit also stated that, for the very same reasons immigration judges "must consider the length of past detention, we hold that the government must provide periodic bond hearings every six months so that noncitizens may challenge their continued detention as 'the period of . . . confinement grows.'" These bond proceedings are required every six months even if the detainee does not request such a hearing.[4]

    Petitioner's challenge

    David Jennings et al., the petitioners, challenged the procedural requirements imposed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding bond hearings for non-citizen aliens detained by the U.S. which the circuit panel affirmed on an appeal of a federal district court's permanent injunction against the government. Jennings, the named petitioner in this case, brings the appeal in his capacity as the field office director of the Los Angeles, California, office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[9]

    Certiorari granted

    On March 25, 2016, David Jennings et al., the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Jennings' certiorari request on June 20, 2016. Argument in the case was first held during the court's October 2016 term on November 30, 2016. On June 26, 2017, at the end of the court's 2016 term, the court announced that the case would be restored to the calendar for the 2017 term. Reargument in the case was held on October 3, 2017.

    Questions presented

    Questions presented:

    "1. Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months.
    2. Whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months.
    3. Whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226 (c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; whether the length of the alien's detention must be weighed in favor of release; and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months."[10]



    2017 audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[11]




    2017 transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[12]

    2016 audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[13]



    2016 transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[14]

    Outcome

    Decision

    The Supreme Court ruled 5 - 3 to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.[3]

    Majority opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. His opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the opinion except as to Part II. Part III-C of Alito's opinion was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    The court ruled that the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the statute to require bail hearings was implausible. It ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. Alito wrote that the doctrine should only be applied where there were several plausible readings of the statute. In this case, he continued, the statutory language was clear, so there was no reason to apply the doctrine.

    “ Under the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a

    court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must interpret the statute, not rewrite it. Because the Court of Appeals in this case adopted implausible constructions of the three immigration provisions at issue, we reverse its judgment and remand for further proceedings. ...In sum, §§1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) mandate detention of aliens throughout the completion of applicable proceedings and not just until the moment those proceedings begin. Of course, other provisions of the immigration statutes do authorize detention 'pending' other proceedings or 'until' a certain point. But there is no 'canon of interpretation that forbids interpreting different words used in different parts of the same statute to mean roughly the same thing.' Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U. S. 519, 540 (2013). We decline to invent and apply such a canon here.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag[5]

    		”

    Alito also wrote that, on remand, the Ninth Circuit would need to consider the merit of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims:

    “ Because the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that periodic bond hearings are required under the immigration provisions at issue here, it had no occasion to consider respondents’ constitutional arguments on their merits. Consistent with our role as 'a court of review, not of first view,' Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), we do not reach those arguments. Instead, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to consider them in the first instance.[3][5] ”

    Concurring opinion by Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the court's judgment and in most of the majority's opinion. Thomas wrote separately to emphasize that he did not believe that the court should have heard the case:

    “ In my view, no court has jurisdiction over this case. Congress has prohibited courts from reviewing aliens’ claims related to their removal, except in a petition for review from a final removal order or in other circumstances not present here. Respondents have not brought their claims in that posture, so §1252(b)(9) removes jurisdiction over their challenge to their detention. I would therefore vacate the judgment below with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.But because a majority of the Court believes we have jurisdiction, and I agree with the Court’s resolution of the merits, I join Part I and Parts III–VI of the Court’s opinion.[3][15][5] ”

    Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas' concurrence.

    Dissent by Justice Breyer

    Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the court's opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Breyer would have applied the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to conclude that the statute provided for bail hearings because he believed that the immigration statute would be unconstitutional without such a provision. He wrote, "In my view, the relevant constitutional language, purposes, history, tradition, and case law all make clear that the majority’s interpretation at the very least would raise 'grave doubts' about the statute’s constitutionality."[3]

    “ The Court reads the statute as forbidding bail, hence forbidding a bail hearing, for these individuals. In my view, the majority’s interpretation of the statute would likely render the statute unconstitutional. Thus, I would follow this Court’s longstanding practice of construing a statute 'so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score.' United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916). And I would interpret the statute as requiring bail hearings, presumptively after six months of confinement.[3][5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ PBS NewsHour, "Inside the Supreme Court's little-known revision process," October 4, 2016
    2. ↑ Bloomberg, "Record Numbers of Undocumented Immigrants Being Detained in U.S.," November 10, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 United States Supreme Court, Jennings v. Rodriguez, February 27, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Rodriguez et al. v. Robbins et al., October 28, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "8 U.S. Code § 1225 - Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing," accessed September 29, 2016
    7. ↑ Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "8 U.S. Code § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens," accessed September 29, 2016
    8. ↑ Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "8 U.S. Code § 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed," accessed September 29, 2016
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez - Petition for a writ of certiorari, filed March 25, 2016
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, June 20, 2016
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, argued October 3, 2017
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, argued October 3, 2017
    13. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, argued November 30, 2016
    14. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jennings v. Rodriguez, argued November 30, 2016
    15. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jennings_v._Rodriguez&oldid=8891740"