Garland v. Gonzalez
596 U. S. ____ (2022) (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) strips lower federal courts of jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief that enjoins or restrains the operation of specified provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as the statute's exception for relief only applies to "an individual alien."
Facts:
- Respondents Esteban Aleman Gonzalez, Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez, and Edwin Flores Tejada are natives and citizens of Mexico and El Salvador, respectively.
- Each had been previously ordered removed from the United States.
- They subsequently reentered the United States illegally and were apprehended by federal authorities.
- Upon their apprehension, their prior orders of removal were reinstated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
- Each respondent sought withholding of removal, claiming they would face persecution or torture if returned to their home countries.
- While awaiting their withholding-of-removal proceedings, the Federal Government detained them for more than six months under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) without providing them a bond hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The District Court certified a class and entered a class-wide injunction ordering the government to provide bond hearings to detainees held over 180 days under § 1231(a)(6).
- Edwin Flores Tejada filed a similar suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- That District Court also certified a class and granted class-wide injunctive relief against the government.
- In both cases, the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in the Aleman Gonzalez case.
- A separate divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in the Flores Tejada case.
- The government (Garland, Attorney General) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) deprive lower federal courts of jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief against the operation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. Section 1252(f)(1) deprives lower federal courts of jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief against the operation of the specified INA provisions. The plain language of the statute prohibits courts from entering orders that "enjoin or restrain the operation of" these provisions. The injunctions issued by the lower courts, which required the government to provide bond hearings to entire classes of aliens, interfere with the government's efforts to operate the detention statute, § 1231(a)(6). The statute's single exception, which allows for relief "with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien," must be read narrowly. The use of the singular phrase "an individual alien" explicitly precludes relief that extends to an entire class. The Court rejected the argument that "operation" refers only to the lawful operation of a statute, noting this would illogically make jurisdiction dependent on the merits of the underlying claim.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
No. Section 1252(f)(1) does not deprive lower courts of jurisdiction to grant this type of class-wide injunctive relief. An injunction that compels the Executive Branch to comply with a statute does not "enjoin or restrain the operation of" that statute; rather, it restrains unlawful agency action that is not part of the statute's proper functioning. Furthermore, the saving clause allowing relief for "an individual alien" is consistent with class actions, which are fundamentally a collection of individual claims. Congress demonstrated in a nearby provision, § 1252(e)(1)(B), that it knew how to explicitly prohibit class actions when it intended to, and its omission of such language in § 1252(f)(1) is significant. The majority's interpretation will leave many vulnerable noncitizens without any meaningful opportunity to protect their rights against systemic violations.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails a key tool for challenging systemic immigration policies in federal court. By precluding class-wide injunctive relief under these INA provisions, the ruling effectively requires aliens to challenge unlawful detention policies on a case-by-case basis, a practical impossibility for many. This strengthens the executive branch's authority in immigration enforcement by insulating its policies from broad, court-ordered remedies. The case solidifies a major jurisdictional hurdle for immigrant rights advocates and will likely lead to more individual, and potentially duplicative, habeas corpus petitions rather than efficient class-action litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Garland v. Gonzalez