BOND HEARING

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence, that an alien who has been detained for six months is a flight risk or dangerous to the community. In 2018, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, who had illegally entered the United States in September 2012. The parties differ on whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231 requires a bond hearing after six months of detention, or whether the Department of Homeland Security needs to prove that an alien is a flight risk or danger to the community. The government, represented by Tae Johnson, maintains that neither are required based on the plain meaning of the statute. Further, Johnson claims that current Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies satisfy due process requirements, citing mechanisms such as required hearings, review processes, and access to attorneys. In response, Arteaga-Martinez argues that a bond hearing is required after six months of detention, and that the Department of Homeland Security must then prove that the immigrant is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Mr. Arteaga-Martinez adds that due process is not met by the government’s scheme. This case has important implications for immigrant rights and the administration of immigration law.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret the statutory construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and ultimately decide how easy it will be for the Government to begin deportation proceedings against criminal aliens. Section 1226(c)(1) provides for the mandatory detention of criminal aliens who commit certain offenses. Mony Preap, an alien with two drug convictions that triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c), and two other similarly situated aliens contend that, under this statute, the Department of Homeland Security must immediately arrest criminal aliens upon their release from criminal custody in order for mandatory detention to apply. The Government counters that narrowly construing the statute, as Preap proposes, would contradict Congress’s intent to reduce the growing threat to public safety posed by dangerous criminal aliens and their high risk of flight. The outcome of this case has implications for the Government’s ability to detain aliens without a bond hearing under § 1226(c) following their release from criminal custody and affects the ease with which the Government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider if 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applies to the bond hearing of a noncitizen who was previously deported from the United States, subject to a removal order, and returned to the United States with the request of a deferral of the deportation order. Petitioners Pham et al., on behalf of the United States, contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which would prevent the bond hearing from occurring and require the detention of Chavez, applies to this case. Respondent Chavez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which would allow her to receive a bond hearing, should apply to this case. The outcome of this case has implications for immigration and detention policies for noncitizens that travel to the United States without authorization. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources