Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about when the government must provide bond hearings to certain noncitizens in prolonged immigration detention who are contesting their deportation. The plaintiff in this case was a noncitizen present in the United States, detained in 2018 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pursuant to the post-removal order statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The plaintiff sought “witholding of removal,” or injunctive relief, based on his fear that he would be persecuted or tortured if he returned to Mexico. Immigration judges adjudicate these claims, a process that sometimes takes years.
The plaintiff had been detained for four months awaiting a hearing when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 4, 2018 and assigned to Judge John E. Jones III. Named as defendants were officials in the Department of Homeland Security and other individuals involved in the plaintiff’s detention. The plaintiff, who had yet to receive a bond hearing, pointed to circuit court precedent which established that a noncitizen facing prolonged detention under the post-removal order statute was entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention.
The government conceded before the district court that, under Third Circuit precedent, the plaintiff would be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention. The district court accordingly granted relief on the plaintiff’s statutory claim and, on November 7, 2018, ordered the government to provide the plaintiff a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on August 20, 2019, the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s order. 2019 WL 13031922. The plaintiff then received a bond hearing at which an immigration judge authorized his release on bond. The government appealed the Third Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court, filing its petition for writ of certiorari on January 17, 2020. On August 23, 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the dispute.
The Supreme Court held, in an opinion published June 13, 2022, that Section 1231(a)(6) did not require the government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or danger to the community. The Court found no explicit reference to bond hearings before immigration judges or burdens of proof in the text of Section 1231(a)(6). Nor did the Court find any other indication that such procedures were required in the text of the statute. The Court further stated that although the government possessed discretion to provide bond hearings, Section 1231(a)(6) did not require them. An “oblique” reference to terms of supervision in the statute was not enough to create a requirement. 142 S.Ct. 1827.
The Court then reversed and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of two arguments. First, the Court did not address constitutional challenges to prolonged detention under Section 1231(a)(6). And second, the Court did not address the plaintiff’s alternative theory—which the plaintiff failed to raise in the district and circuit court proceedings—that he was presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
This case is ongoing.
Hank Minor (10/11/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13466182/parties/arteaga-martinez-v-doll/
Ibraham, Marcia Binder (Pennsylvania)
Inkeles, John (Pennsylvania)
Priore, S C (Pennsylvania)
(T), Kate Mershimer (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13466182/arteaga-martinez-v-doll/
Last updated July 18, 2023, 3:17 a.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiff is a noncitizen detained by DHS in the United States.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Causes of Action:
Special Case Type(s):
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief: