## Facts

- Cheikh Diop, a citizen of Senegal and a lawful permanent resident since 1986, had several Pennsylvania convictions, including a 1995 controlled-substance conviction later vacated.
- In March 2008, immigration authorities detained Diop under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which mandates detention of certain noncitizens removable on specified criminal grounds.
- Diop remained in immigration detention for 1,072 days (nearly three years) without an individualized bond hearing while removability and related issues were litigated before an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- The length of detention resulted from cumulative delays in ordinary adjudicatory steps, remands, and litigation developments rather than solely from dilatory conduct by Diop.
- During detention, Diop challenged removability and underlying convictions; the government later conceded he was eligible for withholding of removal, and he was released after nearly three years.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) authorizes mandatory detention for a prolonged period without an individualized bond hearing.
2. Whether prolonged mandatory detention without individualized review violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
- The court construed § 1226(c) to authorize mandatory detention only for a reasonable period of time.
- After detention becomes unreasonable, due process requires an individualized hearing at which the government must justify continued detention as necessary to serve the statute’s purposes (ensuring appearance and protecting the community).
- Diop’s 1,072-day detention without such a hearing was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) contains an implied reasonableness limitation.
- Courts may construe detention statutes to avoid serious constitutional doubts (constitutional avoidance).
- Noncitizens in removal proceedings are “persons” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Demore v. Kim permits mandatory detention only for the brief period necessary to complete removal proceedings; materially longer detention triggers heightened due process concerns.
- When detention under § 1226(c) becomes unreasonably prolonged, the government must provide an individualized hearing and establish that continued detention is necessary to prevent flight risk or danger.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that § 1226(c) cannot support multi-year mandatory detention without individualized process; once detention extends beyond a reasonable period, due process requires a hearing at which the government must justify continued confinement, and Diop’s nearly three-year detention without such a hearing violated the Constitution.


Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011)