Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Jennings v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of the United States

November 30, 2016, Reargued October 3, 2017 Argued; February 27, 2018, Decided

No. 15-1204.

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) mandated detention of aliens throughout the completion of applicable proceedings and not just until the moment those proceedings begin; [2]-8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c) mandated detention of any alien falling within its scope and that detention may end prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings only if the alien was released for witness-protection purposes; [3]-Because the lower court improperly applied the constitutional avoidance canon to adopt implausible construction of §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 1226(c), its judgment that detained aliens had a statutory right to periodic bond hearings under those provisions was reversed; [4]-On remand, the lower court was to determine whether it continued to have jurisdiction and was to reexamine whether respondents could continue litigating their claims as a class.

Outcome

Judgment reversed; 5-3 decision; 1 concurrence, 1 dissent.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Constitutional Law > ... > Case or Controversy > Constitutional Questions > Necessity of Determination

HN1  Necessity of Determination

Under the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must interpret the statute, not rewrite it.

 

Immigration Law > Enforcement of Immigration Laws > Immigration Officers

HN2  Immigration Officers

Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225, an alien who arrives in the United States, or is present in the country but has not been admitted, is treated as an applicant for admission. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(a)(1). Applicants for admission must be inspected by immigration officers to ensure that they may be admitted into the country consistent with United States immigration law. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(a)(3).

 

Immigration Law > Enforcement of Immigration Laws > Immigration Officers

HN3  Immigration Officers

8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(1) also applies to certain other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii). 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(2) is broader. It serves as a catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered by § 1225(b)(1) (with specific exceptions). 8 U.S.C.S. § 1225(b)(2)(A), (B).

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

138 S. Ct. 830 ; 200 L. Ed. 2d 122 ; 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1516 ; 86 U.S.L.W. 4094; 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 78; 2018 WL 1054878

DAVID JENNINGS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Subsequent History: On remand at, Remanded by Rodriguez v. Marin, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32650 (9th Cir., Nov. 19, 2018)

Prior History:  [1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18758 (9th Cir. Cal., Oct. 28, 2015)

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.