Immigration Bond Hearing Process

photo src: lightmanimmigration.com

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

photo src: immigrationimpact.com

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

Background

Statute

Under 8 U.S.C.S. 1252(a)(1), an alien detained pending a deportation hearing generally may, in the discretion of the United States Attorney General, be

Facts

The Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)--which operated under the Attorney General--announced a policy allowing the release of alien minors to only a parent or lawful guardian, except in "unusual and extraordinary" cases. Pursuant to this policy, alien juveniles were arrested and detained pending deportation hearings. ...

Claim

A certified class of alien juveniles protested their arrest and detention. The complaint raised claims challenging

Immigration Bond Hearing Process Video

Procedural history

District court

The District Court

In 1988, the INS promulgated a regulation, codified as to deportation at 8 CFR 242.24, which

A week after the regulation took effect, however, the District Court, invalidating the regulatory scheme on due process grounds,

Ninth Circuit panel

On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in reversing, concluded that

Ninth Circuit en-banc

An 11-judge en banc court, designated pursuant to a Court of Appeals rule, then

photo src: www.whitlockgray.com

Opinion of the Court

On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion by Scalia, J., joined by Rehnquist, Ch. J., and White, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., it was held that 242.24, on its face,

(2) did not violate any "equal protection guarantee" in the Fifth Amendment, through

(3) did not violate procedural due process, under the Fifth Amendment, through

(4) did not go beyond the scope of the Attorney General's discretion under 1252(a)(1) to continue custody over arrested aliens, because 242.24 rationally pursued the lawful purpose of protecting the welfare of such juveniles.

photo src: immigrationimpact.com

Concurrence

O'Connor, J., joined by Souter, J., concurring, concluded that

photo src: immigrationimpact.com

Dissent

Stevens, J., joined by Blackmun, J., dissenting, expressed the view that

(2) an agency's interest in minimizing administrative costs was a patently inadequate justification for the detention of harmless children, even when the conditions of detention were "good enough"; and

(3) 242.24, in providing for the wholesale detention of such juveniles for an indeterminate period without individual hearings,

Source of the article : Wikipedia