Decisions

U.S. June 29, 2021 594 U.S. 523; 141 S. Ct. 2271 Third country: None (the question was detention authority, not destination)

Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that the detention of a person whose earlier removal order has been reinstated after unlawful reentry is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, not § 1226, so such people are not entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge while their withholding-only proceedings are pending. On the effect of a withholding grant, the Court said the removal order “remains in full force, and DHS retains the authority to remove the alien to any other country authorized by the statute,” a list the Court sets out that ends with “any country willing to accept the alien.” And: “In short, withholding-only relief is country-specific. It relates to where an alien may be removed. It says nothing, however, about the antecedent question whether an alien is to be removed from the United States.” 594 U.S. 536. Justice Breyer, dissenting for three, would have held that § 1226 governs and that a bond hearing is required.

Detention authority Reinstated removal orders Withholding-only proceedings Bond hearing Section 1226 and section 1231 Country-specific nature of withholding Contrary authority

Caution Contrary authority, included because it cuts against the argument rather than for it, and anyone relying on the cases in this collection should read it first. The question presented was which of two detention statutes applies during withholding-only proceedings. Revocation of an order of supervision, notice of a third-country designation, and the reliability of diplomatic assurances were not before the Court and are not addressed in the opinion.

6th Cir. December 20, 2018 912 F.3d 869 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

Reversing, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over the removal-based claims and that § 1252(f)(1) barred the class-wide injunction on the detention-based claims. It vacated both preliminary injunctions and remanded with directions to dismiss the removal-based claims. Judge White dissented, and would have held that the District Court had jurisdiction. The panel described the case as arising from “the government’s efforts to execute long-standing final removal orders of Iraqi nationals that the United States had, for many years, been unable to execute.”

Jurisdiction stripping Section 1252(g) Section 1252(f)(1) Class-wide injunctive relief Suspension Clause Habeas Preliminary injunction vacated Contrary authority

Caution Contrary authority, and controlling in the Sixth Circuit. It vacated the 24 July 2017 injunction recorded separately in this collection. The panel ruled on jurisdiction and on the form of relief; the lawfulness of the removals themselves, and the process due before an order of supervision is revoked, were not before it. The opinion was first filed unpublished on 20 December 2018 and designated for full-text publication the following day, which is why some sources date it 21 December.