News & Insights

Legal Context

Under U.S. immigration law, immigrants who have final removal orders but are not immediately deported can be detained for a limited period. The Supreme Court has previously held that indefinite detention without sufficient procedural safeguards raises serious constitutional concerns. The issue in this case was whether individuals detained under § 1231(a)(6) for prolonged periods are entitled to the same procedural protections as those detained under other immigration statutes, such as a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Court’s Analysis

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the case by:

• Balancing Interests: The court emphasized the importance of an individual’s liberty interest in avoiding prolonged detention against the government’s interest in ensuring compliance with immigration orders.
• Procedural Safeguards: The court noted that administrative custody reviews conducted by DHS lacked critical procedural safeguards, such as neutral adjudication and an opportunity for the individual to present their case in person.
• Constitutional Avoidance: Applying the principle of constitutional avoidance, the court interpreted the statute to require a bond hearing to mitigate serious due process concerns raised by prolonged detention.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit held that individuals detained under § 1231(a)(6) for extended periods are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. At this hearing, the government must prove that continued detention is justified because the individual is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The court reversed the district court’s denial of Diouf’s request for a preliminary injunction, ensuring that he and others in similar circumstances have the opportunity to challenge their prolonged detention.

Implications

This decision strengthens due process protections for immigrants facing prolonged detention. It affirms that even those under final removal orders have the right to challenge their continued detention and cannot be indefinitely confined without neutral judicial oversight.