Supreme Court Rejects Bail Hearings for Jailed Immigrants — What That Really Means

In a line of cases, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration detention laws do not guarantee periodic bond (bail) hearings for many detained noncitizens. This allows prolonged detention while cases proceed. In Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), the Court ruled that the detention statutes for certain arriving and criminally removable noncitizens—8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c)—do not require automatic bond hearings or time limits. In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (2022), the Court said § 1231(a)(6) likewise does not mandate a hearing after six months. It rejected a judge-made “Zadvydas-style” rule for statutory bond. And in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (2022), the Court curtailed classwide injunctions ordering such hearings, forcing most challenges into individual suits.

What remains possible

• Bond under § 1226(a): Many detainees not held under §§ 1225(b)/1226(c) can still seek bond before an immigration judge under § 1226(a) (government can appeal). Jennings didn’t eliminate that pathway; it rejected automatic, periodic hearings for other categories.
• Parole: Arriving noncitizens may request DHS parole based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. This is an executive, not judicial, decision.
• Individual federal court review: Detainees can file habeas/APA actions challenging their detention’s legality. This could be due to prolonged post-order detention with no significant likelihood of removal. However, no categorical six-month rule applies after Arteaga-Martinez.

Practical defense steps

1. Identify your statute: Ask counsel whether you’re detained under § 1225(b) (arriving), § 1226(c) (mandatory detention), § 1226(a) (discretionary bond eligible), or § 1231(a) (post-order). The statute controls options.
2. Build bond/parole equities: Clean record, community ties, sponsor address, employment letters, medical needs, and compliance history.
3. Track removal prospects: If travel documents can’t be obtained or removal isn’t reasonably foreseeable, consult counsel about Zadvydas-type arguments. Focus on you, not a class.
4. Protect your case: Keep receipts, court notices, and country-conditions evidence. Request telephonic/virtual testimony for witnesses to mitigate detention barriers.

Bottom line: The Supreme Court has rejected automatic bail hearings for key detention categories and limited classwide remedies. However, individual bond, parole, and habeas strategies still exist—case-by-case, evidence-heavy, and statute-specific.