Source: https://harvardcrcl.org/jennings-v-rodriguez-the-constitutionality-of-detaining-immigrants-without-a-hearing/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:46:13+00:00

Document:
In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful resident working as a dental assistant. Rodriquez was brought to the U.S. when he was an infant. DHS initiated removal proceedings against Rodriguez after he was convicted for possession of a controlled substance and “joyriding.” While Rodriguez fought the removal charges, DHS detained him for over three years without a bond hearing. Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Central District of California. His petition turned into a class action; he and other detained immigrants sought an injunction to mandate individualized bond hearings where the government had the burden of proof to show that a detainee presented a flight or safety risk.
The criminal justice system in the United States already has a detention problem. Over 11 million people are rotated through local jails each year. On any given day, local jails imprison 630,000 people, including 296,000 who have been arrested for non-violent crimes. Especially in cases where defendants are arrested for low-level crimes and do not pose flight or safety risks, pretrial detention in the criminal justice system often results from a defendant’s inability to pay cash bail. Additionally, the numbers of people held in jail without a criminal conviction do not reflect the large number of immigrants who are civilly detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) every day.
The Supreme Court will finally address the constitutional question of whether immigrants detained by the government for long periods of time (6 months or longer) are entitled to individualized bond hearings. On October 3, 2017, the Court heard reargument for Jennings v. Rodriguez, the class action suit started by Alejandro Rodriguez in 2007. Class members had been detained for over six months without a hearing, some while awaiting removal cases and others while awaiting entry into the U.S.
Before the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the class members. It held that immigrants subject to “prolonged” detention of over six months (1) under a statute authorizing the Attorney General to detain any immigrant deportable for committing certain offenses (the “Mandatory Subclass”); (2) under a statute allowing detention while awaiting a decision on whether the immigrant was to be removed; or (3) who were not clearly entitled to admission (the “Arriving Subclass”) were entitled to “individualized bond hearings to justify their continued detention.” Moreover, at those hearings, the government had the burden of proof to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the noncitizen either presented a flight risk or a danger to the community that justified detention. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Hopefully, the Court in Rodriguez will grant immigrants at least some portion of the constitutional rights afforded to U.S. citizens. In the Central District of California, the average length of detention for the class members was over 13 months, and 20% were imprisoned for over 18 months. With the current administration poised to expand detention of immigrants, it is crucial that the Court step in and offer deserved constitutional protections.
Yet the outcome of this case became extremely uncertain on November 10, when Justice Kagan recused herself. A letter written by the Court clerk stated that “while serving as Solicitor General, [Justice Kagan] authorized the filing of a pleading in an earlier phase of this case.” Justice Kagan’s recusal likely means a lost vote in favor of granting bond hearings. Also, if the Court reheard the case because the vote was originally tied at four to four (before Justice Gorsuch joined the Court), this may mean either another tie, or bad news for immigrants’ constitutional rights. Unfortunately, after over ten years of litigation, immigrants still may not be afforded the most basic rights of U.S. citizens. We can only hope that––particularly in the current political environment––at least five of the remaining justices are willing to decide otherwise.
 Kevin Johnson, Argument Preview: The Constitutionality of Immigrant Detention, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 23, 2016), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/11/argument-preview-the-constitutionality-of-immigrant-detention/.
 Johnson, Argument Preview (quoting Brief for the Respondent at 7).
 Peter Wagner, Jails Matter. But Who is Listening?, Prison Policy Initiative (August 14, 2015), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2015/08/14/jailsmatter/.
 Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017, Prison Policy Initiative (March 14, 2017), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html.
 See, e.g., Yoav Gonen, Thousands Are Locked up in NYC Jails Because They Can’t Afford Bail, New York Post (May 18, 2017), https://nypost.com/2017/05/18/thousands-are-locked-up-in-nyc-jails-because-they-cant-afford-bail/.
 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 136 S. Ct. 2489, 195 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2016).
 136 S. Ct. 2489 (2016).
 See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 136 S. Ct. 2489, 195 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2016).
 Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204, Order in Pending Case (Dec. 15, 2016), http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/12/15-1204-12.15.16-order.pdf.
 Brief for the Respondent at 8.
 Amy Howe, Kagan Recuses From Immigrant-Detention Case, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 10, 2017), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/11/kagan-recuses-immigrant-detention-case/.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.