CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROLONGED NO-BOND …

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROLONGED NO-BOND DETENTION IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS USING HABEAS CORPUS
4.1.16IanBratlie,BeckyCassler, and Katherine EvansUMN Law School Center for New Americans & ACLU of Minnesota
The problem
Detention for the duration of removal proceedingsLess access to attorneys/legal resourcesDisincentive to fight good casesPoor detention conditions; treated like prisonersDestructive for people’s lives & familiesExacerbates mental & medical health problems, traumaOften serves no purposeCan last formany months or even years
Focus of This Presentation: Challenging Detention of Clients with Conviction(s)
Congress increasingly harsh toward noncitizens with crimes: blanket policy of automatic detention without individualized reviewIf client has requisite conviction(s):During removal proceedings:mandatorily detained without bond underINA § 236(c)
Theclaim
But noncitizens in detentiondo have due process rights– what does this mean?Balance noncitizens’ liberty interest against:Federal government inherent authority to detain in the immigration contextICE’s interest in detaining individuals who represent a danger or flight risk
What is habeas corpus?
Grounded in the ConstitutionSuspension Clause, Art. 2, s. 9, cl. 228 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3):“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e isin custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. . .”Immigration context:Filed in district courtProcess separate from immigration court & judicial review of removal orders
Key Precedent:ZadvydasandDemore
Zadvydasv. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)Challenged potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention, INA § 241(a)(6)Due Process applies: detentionof noncitizens must be reasonably related to statutory purposeRead implicit time limit into statute authorizing detention without reviewDemorev. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)Challenged no-bond detention during removal proceedings, INA § 236(c)Statute’s facial constitutionality upheld, butDetention at issue was brief (6 months)Kennedy concurrence: if detention becomesunreasonable or unjustified, Due Process may require individualized review
CombiningZadvydasandDemoreto Challenge Prolonged § 236(c) Detention
PART I: Once itbecomes unreasonablyprolonged, no-bond detention during removal proceedings violates eitherthe § 236(c) or the ConstitutionCircuits agreePARTII: At what point does detention become unreasonable, triggering requirement for additionalprocess or release?Circuits vary
Part I: Due Process Implicitly Limits Duration of No-Bond Detention
All circuits to decide the issue agreeDecided Circuits: CA2, CA3, CA6, CA9Suggested in dicta: CA7Cases currently pending: CA1, CA11Countless district courts across the country3 relevant (positive!) D. Minn. Cases:Bah v.Cangemi, 489 F. Supp. 2d 905 (D. Minn. 2007) (Schiltz, J.)Moallinv.Cangemi, 427 F. Supp. 2d 908 (D. Minn. 2006) (Nelson, Mag. Judge)Cisneros v. Napolitano,No. 13-700 (JNE/JJK), 2013 WL 3353939, (D.Minn. July 3, 2013) (Ericksen, J.)
Part II: When Does No-Bond Detention Become Unreasonably Prolonged?
Bright-line six-month rule: CA9,CA2After six months, entitled to automatic IJ bond hearingCase-by-case, multi-factor test: CA3,CA6Duration of detention so farProbable extent of future proceedingsLikelihood of eventual removalDilatory conduct by either party(Length of criminal sentence)Never decided in any district court in CA8
Law on § 236(c) Detention Is Not Well-Developed in the Eighth Circuit
SUGGESTED EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARGUMENTS:(1) Due Process limits the duration of no-bond detention(a)Statutory violation: canon of constitutional avoidance(b) Constitutional violation(2) My client’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged under either test used in other jurisdictionsBe sure to argue both given pending cert. petition(3) If the court feels compelled to choose one test, the six-month test used in CA9 and CA2 is immeasurably better than the multi-factored test used in CA3 and CA6
Additional resources
CNA resource pageACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project practice advisory:Challenging Detention Without a Bond Pending Removal Proceedings(Feb.2015),https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/ACLU%20detention%20without%20bond%20hearing%20February%202015.pdf.FarrinAnello,DueProcess and Temporal Limits on Mandatory Immigration Detention, 65 HASTINGS L.J. 363 (2014)Key circuitases:Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015)Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)Diopv. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011)Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden YorkCty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015)Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003)