On June 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a consequential ruling in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, holding that lower federal courts lack the authority under §1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant classwide injunctive relief in immigration detention cases. This decision detrimentally narrowed the ability of detained noncitizens to challenge prolonged detention in a federal court collectively. The court's determination is a constitutional challenge to the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause as it restricts the right of noncitizens to exercise the legal process of court-ordered bond hearings. The Supreme Court ruling in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez leaves way for arbitrary detention, stripping noncitizens of fundamental human rights and eroding the protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause.

Esteban Aleman Gonzalez, a citizen of Mexico, sought asylum in the United States in March 2017 after expressing reasonable fear of persecution due to threats from the Zeta Drug Cartel. In immigration law, “reasonable fear” refers to a credible likelihood that the individual would face torture or persecution if returned to their country. Gonzalez, however, failed to seek asylum immediately upon entering the United States. According to court documents, he was initially removed to Mexico in 2000, but reentered the U.S. unlawfully shortly after.

It was not until August 2017 that immigration officers found and arrested Gonzalez at his home in California and reinstated his prior removal order (1). Upon arrest, Aleman expressed his reasonable fear of persecution. Two weeks after his arrest, DHS officers confirmed that he verily had a reasonable fear of persecution, which led to his placement in withholding-only proceedings (2). Withholding-only proceedings are for noncitizens who have been ordered for deportation, but request a “withholding of removal” due to fear of persecution.

After being detained for six months, the plaintiff, Aleman, requested a bond hearing before an immigration judge, and this request was denied. The Plaintiff and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez, a noncitizen also sanctioned for more than six months, argued against the denial using the precedent case David Jennings et al. v. Alejandro Rodriguez et al..

Jennings v. Rodriguez is considered a precedent case because, in its 2018 ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that under various statutory provisions, the law does not require automatic bond hearings for detained noncitizens facing deportation unless specific conditions are met. These conditions are outlined in the following statutory provisions:

 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c) – Other Detained Immigrants/ Criminal Aliens, 

• (a) Applies to noncitizens arrested in the U.S. detained or released on bond 

• (c) Mandates detention of noncitizens with criminal connections without bond (3).  

8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) – Inspection of Applicants for Admission, Arriving Asylum Seekers

• (b) Covers the procedures for processing noncitizens arriving in the U.S. Border (4). 

The requirements delineate that no bond hearings are permitted unless parole is granted by DHS or a migrant is released by DHS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealed the ruling and interpreted the immigration statute to require immigration bond hearings every six months for detainees. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision and sent the case back to lower courts to decide whether or not prolonged detention without bond hearings violates the U.S. Constitution (5).

Shifting focus, in the case of Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, the lower courts granted a classwide injunctive relief that ordered bond hearings for all affected detainees, including Gonzalez. On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that under section 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, lower courts do not have the power to grant classwide relief that challenges prolonged detention (6). The Supreme Court ruling ultimately decided that challenging prolonged detention by classwide relief impeded the federal government from executing immigration laws on a national level. As a result, noncitizens must bring detention challenges on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court's ruling raises serious concerns about violating the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Due process provides an opportunity to challenge a government precedent if it restricts freedom. The Supreme Court’s provision under 1252(f)(1) limits the ability of detained noncitizens to receive court-ordered bond hearings, a critical safeguard in immigration law. This sequentially restrains the right of migrants to reap the full benefits of due process. Therefore, individuals are held for prolonged periods without a fair opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention.

Given that the due process clause emphasizes the idea of a fair and just process, it implies that noncitizens should be afforded a reasonable timeframe from their initial detention date to allow them to contest their case in front of a judge (7). The ruling limits the ability of detained noncitizens to access bond hearings, leaving many to be detained for prolonged periods without proving them to be a flight risk or threat. Imprisonment or detention without a proper legal process, or a bond hearing, is considered both arbitrary detention and a violation of the Fifth Amendment. 

Prior to the Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez ruling, federal courts held the power to intervene on behalf of noncitizen groups to challenge prolonged detention without individualized bond hearings. With the courts requiring noncitizens to take on an individualized approach, the likelihood narrows that widespread injustice cases, such as protracted detention, will be addressed promptly. Consequently, removing classwide relief creates an assortment of deleterious outcomes. 

Geography is a factor that will cause variation in rulings between detainees since each state operates under a different legal climate and circuit court. A detainee in a northern state may face a different outcome than a detainee in a southern state, despite having similar circumstances. This pertinent factor leads to inconsistencies under the law, where an individual's fate can be decided based on where they are being detained as opposed to the crux of their case. 

Additionally, with the Supreme Court removing class-action lawsuits and obliging noncitizens to take on cases individually, access to legal aid will cause discrepancies in case rulings. As previously stated, the contrast between states creates a contrast in rulings, but also a disparity in the availability of immigration attorneys. For decades, immigrants have relied on class-action lawsuits to win over systems of mass detention. By shifting from classwide cases to individual cases, the legal burden falls on the detainees, many of whom lack legal representation and counsel. 

According to a 2022 ACLU report, 79% of detained immigrants in removal proceedings did not have legal counsel, highlighting the challenges they face in navigating complex legal processes alone (8). Noncitizens who are detained in states with a more developed and robust network of immigration attorneys and possible non-profit services are more likely to receive representation and effectively navigate legal processes. On the contrary, detention centers that are located in underserved areas do not give noncitizens a fair shot at retaining legal counsel. A 2019 analysis by NPR found that 52% of immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were housed in rural areas, where access to legal representation is limited and deportation risks are higher (9). Immigration proceedings are neither civil nor criminal, thus, there is no certainty in attaining a public defender.

The broader implications of this ruling delve into how the ruling narrows judicial oversight. In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars lower courts from issuing classwide injunctive relief. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that the decision “limits the ability of immigrants to protect their rights through collective legal action, leaving many to navigate complex proceedings without meaningful judicial intervention” (10). By requiring individual lawsuits to challenge prolonged detention, the Court’s ruling introduces procedural barriers that inordinately impact vulnerable detainees and increase the risk of arbitrary detention. These rulings that once provided relief are now called into question, potentially fragmenting due process standards across jurisdictions. With judicial oversight being impaired, judicial discretion is bound to vary. Moreover, the same inductive reasoning used in Garland sets a precedent that could further restrict classwide remedies beyond detention, involving due process violations, deportation policies, and asylum procedures. 

The Garland ruling deviates from the long-standing Due Process Clause and its protections. The decision increases the chances that migrants can be held not due to posing a flight risk, but simply because they lack the means to advocate for themselves. The switch from classwide relief to individually challenged cases imposes systemic harm and discrimination upon marginalized communities, infringing on their right to fundamental liberty. To preserve constitutional safeguards, the Supreme Court must explicitly allow lower courts the authority to grant classwide injunctive relief in immigration detention cases to ensure accessible justice for all.