Bond hearings for immigrants
Jennings v. Rodriguez
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the dispute back to that court.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · February 27, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Immigrants held during removal proceedings challenged whether federal law requires bond hearings after six months, including for people subject to mandatory detention.
- Who it affects
- The Ninth Circuit’s prior judgment no longer stands, and the immigrants’ case returns to that court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to that court (remanded).
Federal law requires some immigrants to be held during removal proceedings, and this case asked when they can seek release at a bond hearing.
Question 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.
What the Court decided
Holding
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II. Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined that opinion in full; Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined as to all but Part II; and Sotomayor, J., joined as to Part III-C. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined except for footnote 6. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., took no part in the decision of the case.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
What's next
The Ninth Circuit will take up the case again.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Jennings
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.