## Facts

- Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident and Mexican citizen, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 during removal proceedings following a criminal conviction.
- Rodriguez and similarly situated detained noncitizens brought a putative class action challenging prolonged civil immigration detention without individualized bond hearings.
- The challenge focused on detention authority under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c), asserting the statutes should be read to require bond hearings and that contrary readings raised serious due process concerns.
- The district court ordered injunctive relief requiring bond hearings for class members.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed by construing the INA, via constitutional-avoidance reasoning, to require automatic bond hearings after six months of detention and additional hearings every six months, with the government bearing a “clear and convincing evidence” burden to justify continued detention.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) can be interpreted, using constitutional avoidance, to require periodic bond hearings (including a six-month schedule) and a heightened burden of proof for the government.
2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded permissible statutory interpretation by imposing procedural requirements not found in the statutory text.
3. Whether, if no such statutory right exists, the constitutional due process challenges to prolonged detention must be addressed directly.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s statutory holding and remanded.
- The Court held that §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not provide a statutory right to periodic bond hearings or impose time limits on detention.
- The Court concluded the Ninth Circuit misused constitutional avoidance by effectively adding a six-month rule, recurring hearings, and a “clear and convincing evidence” standard without textual support.
- The Court directed the Ninth Circuit to consider the detainees’ due process claims in the first instance rather than rewriting the statute to avoid constitutional questions.
- The Court declined to decide the constitutional validity of prolonged detention without bond hearings under these provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional avoidance applies only if, after ordinary textual analysis, a statute is genuinely susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.
- Courts may reject an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts, but may not disregard clear statutory language or add procedures and standards absent a textual basis.
- Under § 1225(b), the statute’s mandatory-detention language and limited parole mechanism do not support an implied right to bond hearings.
- Under § 1226(c), the mandatory-custody directive and narrow release exception do not support periodic bond hearings.
- Under § 1226(a), the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to release on bond does not authorize courts to impose recurring hearing schedules or heightened burdens of proof as statutory requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the INA’s detention provisions in §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not, as a statutory matter, require periodic bond hearings or time limits, rejected the Ninth Circuit’s use of constitutional avoidance to impose such rules, and remanded for direct consideration of the unresolved due process challenges.


Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018)