Garland v. Gonzalez

Last updated

Garland v. Gonzalez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 11, 2022
Decided June 13, 2022
Full case nameMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Esteban Aleman Gonzalez, et al.
Docket no. 20-322
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Concur/dissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan; Breyer (Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III)
Laws applied
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Contents

Background

Aliens who have been ordered to be deported by immigration courts can be detained by the federal government, pending their removal from the country. The statute that authorizes such detention does not contain a set time limit for the detention, but in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court read in a six-month limitation to avoid what it perceived were constitutional issues. Two separate classes of aliens filed lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of California and Western District of Washington. The courts granted class action status, and enjoined enforcement of the law by the United States Department of Homeland Security, ruling the aliens must be provided with bond hearings where the government had the burden of proving that they are flight risks or dangers to the community. The federal government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Fernandez. The government subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. [1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case and the companion case Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez on August 23, 2021. The court also asked for briefing in Gonzalez on the question of whether a separate provision of the statute stripped the lower courts over the jurisdiction necessary to issue a class-wide injunction. Oral arguments were held on January 11, 2022. On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in a 6–3 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Opinion of the Court

The court's majority opinion authored by Justice Alito concluded that section 1252(f)(1) of the INA deprived the district courts of jurisdiction to issue the class-wide injunction. [2] The court's ruling was based on the premises that 1) "enjoin" in 1252(f)(1) ["to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions"] is best read in its broader meaning which includes "require", and 2) "operation" means "implementation as is" and not "implementation in accordance with the law". The court backed the latter determination by citing many other instances in case law in which "unlawful" or "improper" "operation[s]" are discussed. [3] Furthermore, the court argued, if respondents' interpretation were to be adopted, 1252(f)(1) would cover only constitutional claims with almost no exception:

"But it would be most unusual for Congress to disfavor constitutional claims in this way. Cf. Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 603 (1988) (requiring "clear" indication of congressional intent to "preclude judicial review of constitutional claims"). And if Congress had wanted to target just constitutional claims, it could have surely made the point more directly." [4]

In addition the court emphasized the singular-person character of the language - "an individual alien", and cited a previous case which held that provision to bar class-wide injunction by lower courts. [5]

Sotomayor's Opinion

Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in judgement in part "because the government prevails on the merits", [6] while dissenting on the jurisdiction issue. Justice Kagan joined fully, and Justice Breyer partially. Justice Sotomayor described the court as "elevate[ing] piecemeal dictionary definitions and policy concerns over plain meaning and context". [7] She then turned to context for illuminating the primary clause, arguing that the statute's regular use of "implementation" in place of the court's "operation", and its use of "enjoin" in a more narrow sense in other provisions, suggests an interpretation that doesn't strip the lower courts of their injunctive power in cases like these. [8] Along with this, the dissent disregarded the courts list of improper "operation[s]", reasoning that "Unlike all of those examples, a statute is the law. Officials may implement a statute unlawfully, but a statute does not operate in conflict with itself." [9]

In response to the court's emphasis on the word "individual", the dissent cited Califano v. Goldfarb as a case that held the mere use of "individual" not to preclude classwide relief. [10]

Related Research Articles

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4-2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2021 term, which began October 4, 2021 and concluded October 2, 2022.

Allen v. Milligan is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

  1. ↑ Ray, Shalini Bhargava (January 10, 2022). "Justices will revisit whether certain noncitizens in lengthy detention are entitled to bond hearings". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 14, 2022.
  2. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of the Court p.3.
  3. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of the Court pp. 4-5; 7-8.
  4. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of the Court p.9.
  5. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of the Court pp.5-6, the case cited is Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. 525 U. S. 471 (1999).
  6. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. n.1.
  7. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. p.1.
  8. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. pp. 4-7
  9. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. p.11
  10. ↑ Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022) Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. p.8
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.