Jennings v. Rodriguez
United States Supreme Court
138 S.Ct. 830, 200 L.Ed.2d 122 (2018)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Alejandro Rodriguez (plaintiff) was a Mexican citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In 2004, Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle. The federal government (defendant) detained Rodriguez and sought to remove him from the country. In 2007, Rodriguez filed a habeas petition in federal district court, alleging that he was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. Rodriguez argued that the relevant statutory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the act) did not authorize prolonged detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing. Rodriguez claimed that these hearings were required because the government was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his detention remained justified. Without such a requirement, Rodriguez argued, the relevant provision of the act would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court sided with Rodriguez and issued an injunction against the government. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the act requires that aliens be given a bond hearing every six months and that detention beyond the initial six-month period was permitted only if government proved that further detention was justified. The case was then heard before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
