The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed a class of asylum seekers to continue a constitutional challenge to mandatory immigration detention without individualized Bond hearingA hearing in which an immigration judge decides whether a noncitizen detained by DHS may be released from custody and, if so, under what bond. Eligibility depends on which detention law applies to the person, and immigration judges have no authority over bond for some groups, such as those subject to mandatory detention.See it in the glossary.
The ruling
In Padilla v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, decided September 21, the court affirmed the district court’s refusal to dismiss the class’s Fifth Amendment due process claim.
The class includes AsylumProtection granted to a person already in the United States or at a port of entry who meets the definition of a refugee and cannot safely return to their country.See it in the glossary seekers who entered the United States without admission or ParoleDiscretionary, temporary permission for a person who may be inadmissible to enter or remain in the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, set out in INA 212(d)(5). Parole is not an admission, and a paroled person is still treated as an applicant for admission.See it in the glossary, were placed in expedited removal screening, received positive credible fear determinations, and were then transferred to regular removal proceedings. Because they were initially processed under the expedited removal framework, they are subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Legal background
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, that statute does not itself provide these detainees with bond hearings while their asylum claims are pending. The plaintiffs argue that prolonged detention without an individualized hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
What the court decided
The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether the class is ultimately entitled to bond hearings. Instead, it resolved two threshold issues. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the constitutional challenge and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam does not automatically bar the class’s due process claim.
The court emphasized that the class includes noncitizens apprehended well beyond the immediate border area. The majority also distinguished a challenge involving detention from the admission-related claim at issue in Thuraissigiam. Judge Michelle Friedland agreed with the judgment but did not join that broader detention discussion.
What happens next
The decision means the constitutional challenge can continue in district court. It does not create an automatic right to release or an immediate class-wide right to a bond hearing, and the underlying merits of the due process claim remain unresolved.