Facts
- Hyung Joon Kim, a lawful permanent resident from South Korea, was convicted in California of first-degree burglary and later petty theft with priors.
- The government initiated removal proceedings, alleging Kim was deportable based on an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the government detained Kim without bond while removal proceedings were pending.
- Kim sought habeas relief, arguing due process required an individualized determination of flight risk or dangerousness before continued detention.
- The district court ordered an individualized bond hearing; Kim was released on bond.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the mandatory detention scheme violated substantive due process as applied to a lawful permanent resident.
Issues
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) bars federal courts from exercising habeas jurisdiction over statutory and constitutional challenges to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- Whether mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing for certain criminal aliens during removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause as applied to a lawful permanent resident.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed.
- Section 1226(e) does not eliminate habeas jurisdiction over constitutional or statutory challenges to the detention framework; it bars review of discretionary detention or release decisions.
- Mandatory detention of the specified class of deportable criminal aliens during removal proceedings under § 1226(c), without individualized bond hearings, is constitutionally permissible.
- The Court distinguished post-final-order, potentially indefinite detention from the pre-final-order detention at issue, characterized as typically limited in duration.
- The Court accepted Congress’s objectives of ensuring appearance at removal proceedings and protecting the public from criminal aliens as sufficient to justify categorical detention for the covered class.
Legal Principles
- Statutory limits on reviewing “discretionary” immigration detention decisions do not bar habeas review of constitutional or statutory challenges to the legality of the detention scheme itself.
- Congress may mandate civil detention of certain deportable criminal aliens during ongoing removal proceedings as an incident of the removal process, without requiring individualized bond determinations in every case.
- Due process analysis in this context considers the government’s interests in preventing flight and protecting the community and the fact that detention is tied to completion of removal proceedings rather than an open-ended commitment.
- Pre-removal-order detention under § 1226(c) is treated differently from potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention, which raises distinct due process concerns.
- A concurrence indicated that unreasonably prolonged detention attributable to government delay could present serious due process problems and may warrant individualized review.
Conclusion
The Court held that federal courts may hear habeas challenges to the legality of the mandatory-detention framework, but that Congress may require detention without bond for certain deportable criminal lawful permanent residents during removal proceedings, given the government’s interests and the detention’s connection to completing those proceedings.