Menu
Supreme Court Rules That Immigrants Can Be Detained Indefinitely
Contributor: Van T. Doan
The U.S. Supreme Court has had a busy term, and in June of this year, it released a pair of decisions that affect immigrants: Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Alemam Gonzalez. Both cases involved unauthorized immigrants who were held in detention for an extended time by the United States government. There are thousands of people in federal custody in similar situations, with open immigration matters. The rulings in these cases mean that those immigrants are not automatically entitled to a bond hearing, and that they may be held indefinitely. In addition, if future detainees want to argue in court that they should be granted a bond hearing, they must do so as individuals, not as a class of people seeking relief.
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Antonio Arteaga-Martinez was a Mexican national. He was ordered removed from the United States after entering the country without legal permission. As permitted by federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1231), he was detained in federal custody.
Arteaga-Martinez petitioned the U.S. government for withholding of removal, stating that he feared persecution or torture if returned to his home country. If granted, his request for withholding of removal would prevent the U.S. government from returning him to Mexico. Unfortunately, withholding of removal claims typically take a long time to decide—often months or years.
The Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the post-removal order statute, allowed Arteaga-Martinez to be detained for a prolonged period. If it did, the Court needed to answer the question of whether he was entitled to a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge after six months in federal detention. In a bond hearing, the judge would consider whether the immigrant seeking bond was a flight risk and whether he posed a danger to others before agreeing to release the detainee. If bond was granted, the detainee would be released under government supervision while awaiting determination of the underlying immigration matter.
The statute at issue in the case says that an unauthorized immigrant “may be detained” for an extended period under certain circumstances. Arteaga-Martinez argued that the use of that language rather than “shall be detained” implies that the immigration court has discretion in the case and that the immigrant is entitled to a hearing on the matter.
The Supreme Court disagreed, reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2020 ruling that said detainees were entitled to a bond hearing. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion.
Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez
The case of Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez involved a group of unauthorized immigrants in a similar situation to Arteaga-Martinez in the case discussed above. The case was a consolidation of two class actions.
In addition to the question of whether the class members were entitled to bond hearings, the case raised the issue of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) barred the class-wide injunctive relief that the district court had ordered and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, wrote that INA 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”
What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for Detainees
Unauthorized immigrants in long-term detention may still seek a bond hearing, but the ruling means that the law does not automatically entitle them to one. Detainees who do seek a bond hearing must do so on an individual basis; this relief cannot be granted to a class.
In short, the path to a bond hearing has not been closed altogether, but it has become much more difficult for immigrants who might be facing years in detention if bond is not granted. Legal scholars believe that the ruling means that many people who could be entitled to a bond hearing may not get one because they do not have legal representation.
While people charged with a crime in the United States are entitled to have an attorney appointed for them if they cannot afford one, the same is not true for people in immigration detention. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University has found that roughly 21% of individuals in immigration detention centers can get legal representation. The research organization also found that having a lawyer improves the likelihood of success in an immigration case.
The American Immigration Council has determined that the average length of stay in detention was 55 days as of December 2019. That number is likely higher today given backlogs worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. And even prior to the pandemic, some immigrants were stuck in detention for many months or even years.
If you have questions about the recent Supreme Court rulings, or need help with your immigration matter, please contact our law office.
Categories: Immigration Law