News & Insights

Facts:

In the late 1980s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) implemented a regulation governing the custody of immigrant minors arrested on suspicion of being in the U.S. illegally. This regulation stipulated that minors could only be released to their parents, legal guardians, or close relatives unless “unusual and compelling circumstances” justified release to another responsible adult. If no such custodian was available, minors would remain in government custody in state-licensed care facilities that adhered to specific welfare standards.

A group of immigrant minors challenged this policy, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by preventing release to other responsible adults. They also claimed the policy exceeded the Attorney General’s authority under immigration law.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court evaluated the case as a facial challenge to the regulation, requiring the challengers to prove that the policy was invalid under all circumstances.

The Court assessed the regulation under both substantive and procedural due process principles:

• Substantive Due Process: The Court rejected the claim that minors had a fundamental right to be released to a willing, responsible adult custodian of their choosing. Instead, it held that institutional custody in licensed facilities, when no approved family custodian was available, was reasonable and rationally connected to the government’s legitimate interest in the minors’ welfare.
• Procedural Due Process: The Court found the existing procedures sufficient, noting that minors could request a review of custody decisions by an immigration judge. The absence of automatic hearings or home studies for other custodians was not unconstitutional.

The Court also ruled that the policy did not exceed the Attorney General’s statutory authority, as it balanced welfare concerns and administrative capabilities.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court upheld the INS regulation. It concluded that the policy complied with the Due Process Clause and immigration law by reasonably balancing the welfare of detained minors with the government’s operational limitations.

What Happened?

The U.S. government created a rule about where to place immigrant children who enter the country alone and are caught by immigration authorities. The rule said these children could only be released to close family members (like parents or grandparents) or legal guardians unless there were very special reasons. If no family member was available, the children would stay in licensed shelters where they would receive care.

Some of these children argued that they should also be allowed to live with responsible adults like family friends. They claimed this rule violated their constitutional rights and went beyond what immigration laws allow.

What Did the Court Say?

The Supreme Court said the rule was legal. It explained that the government has a duty to care for these children but does not have to release them to just anyone. The Court also said that the process for deciding where the children stay was fair and did not need extra steps like automatic reviews.

What Does This Mean?

This decision showed that while immigrant children have rights, the government can make rules to ensure their safety and proper care. These rules can prioritize family and licensed shelters over other options.