Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
January 11, 2022, Argued; June 13, 2022, Decided1
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents in these two cases are aliens who were detained by the Federal Government pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6) pending removal from this country. Respondents sued in two Federal District Courts, alleging that §1231(a)(6) requires the Government to provide bond hearings in cases like theirs. Both District Courts certified classes, agreed with respondents’ claims on the merits, and entered class-wide injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed both judgments in relevant part.
We granted certiorari and instructed the parties to address whether another provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 208, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1), deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ requests for class-wide injunctive relief. We hold that the statute has that effect, and we therefore reverse.
] The two cases before us arise out of respondents’ detention pursuant to §1231(a)(6), which gives the Federal Government discretionary authority in specified circumstances to detain aliens who have been “‘ordered removed’” from the United States. See Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U. S. ___, ___-___, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2836 (2022) (slip op., at 4-5).
Respondents Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez—the named plaintiffs in the case [*7] that bears Aleman Gonzalez’s name—are natives and citizens of Mexico. They each reentered the United States illegally after being removed, and after they were apprehended, their prior orders of removal were “reinstated” as authorized by §1231(a)(5). They sought withholding of removal on the ground that they would be subject to torture or persecution if they were returned to Mexico. While they awaited proceedings before an immigration judge, they were detained under §1231(a)(6), and they then filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that aliens detained under §1231(a)(6) are entitled to bond hearings after six months’ detention. The District Court certified a class of similarly situated plaintiffs and “enjoined [the Government] from detaining [respondents] and the class members pursuant to section 1231(a)(6) for more than 180 days without providing each a bond hearing.” Gonzalez v. Sessions, 325 F. R. D. 616, 629 (2018). A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Compare Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F. 3d 762, 766 (2020), with id., at 790 (Fernandez, J., dissenting).
Respondent Edwin Flores Tejada—the named plaintiff in the case that bears his name—is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He likewise was previously ordered removed, reentered the country illegally, had [*8] his prior removal order reinstated, applied for withholding of removal, and was detained under §1231(a)(6). He filed suit in the Western District of Washington, likewise alleging (as relevant here) that §1231(a)(6) entitled him to a bond hearing. The District Court certified a class, granted partial summary judgment against the Government, and entered class-wide injunctive relief. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 110a; Report and Recommendation in Martinez Baños v. Asher, No. 2:16-cv-01454 (WD Wash., Jan. 23, 2018) (ECF), Doc. 77-1, p. 2. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part. Compare Flores Tejada v. Godfrey, 954 F. 3d 1245, 1247 (2020), with id., at 1251 (Fernandez, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. LEXIS 2844 *; __ S.Ct. __; 2022 WL 2111346
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ESTEBAN ALEMAN GONZALEZ, ET AL.
Notice: The pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.
Subsequent History: As Revised June 17, 2022.
Prior History: [*1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Tejada v. Godfrey, 954 F.3d 1245, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10862, 2020 WL 1684035 (9th Cir. Wash., Apr. 7, 2020)Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10870, 2020 WL 1684034 (9th Cir. Cal., Apr. 7, 2020)
Disposition: 955 F. 3d 762 and 954 F. 3d 1245, reversed and remanded.
injunctive relief, enjoin, classwide, provisions, restrain, cases, district court, alien, injunctions, proceedings, detained, immigration, noncitizens, detention, lower court, Dictionary, slip opinion, initiated, removal, removal proceedings, class action, equitable, parties, constitutional claim, agency's action, named plaintiff, saving clause, hearings, merits, rights
Immigration Law, Deportation & Removal, Administrative Proceedings, Bond, Custody & Detention, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Sources, Statutory Sources, Judicial Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Remedies, Injunctions, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Immigration Officers, State Enforcement, Remedies, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Securities Law, RICO Actions, Elements of Proof, Definition of Person