## Facts

- Noncitizens detained in the Central District of California brought a class action challenging prolonged civil immigration detention without adequate bond hearings.
- The challenged detention arose under several Immigration and Nationality Act provisions governing pre-removal and post-final-order custody, including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a)(6).
- The district court certified a class of detainees whose immigration proceedings were ongoing and who had not received constitutionally adequate bond hearings.
- After earlier preliminary relief, the district court entered a permanent injunction requiring automatic bond hearings after six months of detention, with specified procedural protections, for detainees held under the identified statutes.
- The government appealed the permanent injunction, and the class cross-appealed aspects of the relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the INA detention provisions can be construed, using constitutional avoidance, to require individualized bond hearings after six months of detention to prevent prolonged detention without sufficient process.
2. Whether a class-wide permanent injunction mandating automatic bond hearings at the six-month mark (and related uniform procedures) was permissible.
3. What procedural requirements apply at such bond hearings, including burden allocation, standard of proof, and consideration of alternatives to detention.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the permanent injunction.
- The court held that detainees held longer than six months under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(c), and 1226(a) must receive automatic individualized bond hearings before an immigration judge.
- At those hearings, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified due to danger to the community or risk of flight.
- Immigration judges must consider less restrictive alternatives to continued detention, including release on bond or conditions of supervision.
- The court approved class-wide injunctive relief requiring uniform procedures to address shared, prolonged-detention practices affecting the class.

## Legal Principles

- Civil immigration detention that becomes unreasonably prolonged raises serious due process concerns; courts may construe statutes to avoid interpretations that create grave constitutional doubts.
- A six-month detention period may serve as a benchmark for when detention becomes “prolonged,” triggering an individualized custody determination.
- In prolonged-detention bond hearings, due process requires the government to bear the burden of justifying continued detention.
- Clear and convincing evidence is required for the government to establish danger or flight risk sufficient to continue civil detention.
- Decisionmakers must assess whether conditions of release can reasonably mitigate risk, rather than defaulting to continued custody.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit interpreted key INA detention provisions to require automatic bond hearings after six months for specified categories of immigration detainees and imposed uniform, classwide procedures placing a clear-and-convincing burden on the government to justify continued detention based on danger or flight risk while considering less restrictive release conditions.


Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015)