Garland v. Gonzalez

Background

Named plaintiffs in two lawsuits were noncitizens detained after reentering the United States. Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez are Mexican nationals; Edwin Flores Tejada is from El Salvador. Each had prior removal orders reinstated, sought withholding of removal, and were detained under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6). They filed class actions alleging that people detained under §1231(a)(6) must get bond hearings after about six months. District Courts certified classes and ordered classwide bond hearings; divided panels of the Ninth Circuit affirmed those orders.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) bars district courts from granting classwide injunctions that affect the “operation” of certain immigration statutes. The majority (opinion by Justice Alito) held that §1252(f)(1) strips lower courts of authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the listed immigration provisions, except as applied to an individual alien against whom proceedings have been initiated. Because the District Courts issued classwide injunctions, the Court concluded those orders were barred and reversed the Ninth Circuit decisions.

Real world impact

The ruling removes the federal-court route for classwide orders forcing bond hearings for groups detained under §1231(a)(6). People detained under that statute and advocacy groups can no longer rely on class actions to secure group injunctive relief; affected individuals must pursue relief individually. The decision resolves only the jurisdictional question about classwide injunctions and does not finally decide on the underlying merits about whether bond hearings are required in every case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor (joined in part by Justices Kagan and Breyer) concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that courts should retain authority to issue classwide relief to stop unlawful agency implementation and warning the ruling will leave many detained noncitizens without practical remedies.