Decisions

Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez

U.S. · June 13, 2022

Court U.S.
Decided June 13, 2022
Docket No. 20-322 (together with Garland v. Flores Tejada)
Citation 596 U.S. 543 (2022)
Judge Opinion of the Court by Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, and by Justice Breyer in part, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part.
Disposition Judgments of the Ninth Circuit reversed and the cases remanded. The Court held that section 1252(f)(1) deprived the district courts of jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctions requiring bond hearings for people detained under section 1231(a)(6).
Nationality Two certified classes. The named plaintiffs were citizens of Mexico and of El Salvador who had been ordered removed, reentered, had their removal orders reinstated, and applied for withholding of removal.
Third country None. The question was detention authority and the scope of relief, not destination.

The respondents had been detained under section 1231(a)(6) while they sought withholding of removal after their earlier removal orders were reinstated. In two class actions, district courts in California and Washington ordered bond hearings for the class members after six months of detention; the Northern District of California “enjoined [the Government] from detaining [respondents] and the class members pursuant to section 1231(a)(6) for more than 180 days without providing each a bond hearing.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed both. The Supreme Court reversed on a threshold question. It held that section 1252(f)(1) “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions,” with one exception: lower courts retain authority to “enjoin or restrain the operation of” those provisions “with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” The Court concluded: “It is sufficient to hold that the classwide injunctive relief awarded in these cases was unlawful.” The opinion refers to the companion case decided the same day, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, for the detention authority under section 1231(a)(6).

Caution The Court decided only the availability of class-wide injunctive relief. It did not decide whether people detained under section 1231(a)(6) are entitled to bond hearings, and it left individual relief untouched by its own terms. The Court also said it had no occasion to decide whether section 1252(f)(1) reaches declaratory relief. The text read is the slip opinion, which is subject to formal revision.

Section 1252(f)(1) Class relief Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding-only proceedings Reinstated removal orders Detention pending removal

The court's own text

Read in full from the text of the slip opinion, which is identical to the Supreme Court's own file.

This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.

← All decisions in the register