Lexplug logoLexplug

Leader v. Blackman

District Court, S.D. New York
744 F. Supp 500, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10523, 1990 WL 116894 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute mandating the detention of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies without the possibility of bail pending deportation proceedings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by creating an irrebuttable presumption of danger and flight risk.


Facts:

  • Petitioner Anthony Charles Leader, a citizen of Bermuda, was a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1976.
  • In April 1989, Leader was arrested by New York State Police for the sale of cocaine.
  • Leader pled guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under New York Penal Law.
  • He served a one-year prison sentence for this conviction.
  • Upon completing his state prison sentence in December 1989, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) immediately took Leader into custody.
  • The INS informed Leader he would be held without bail pending a final determination of his deportability, citing the mandatory detention provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  • Leader requested release on bond, arguing that his specific circumstances did not warrant detention, but the statute prohibited any release.

Procedural Posture:

  • The INS issued a warrant of arrest charging Leader as deportable.
  • Leader sought a redetermination of his bail status before an Immigration Judge.
  • The Immigration Judge denied the request, ruling that the statute barred bail.
  • Leader appealed the bail denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
  • The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision denying bail.
  • Leader filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Locked

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 Section 242(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mandates that aliens convicted of aggravated felonies be held in custody without bail pending deportation proceedings, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Goettel

Yes, the mandatory detention provision is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause by denying an individualized bail hearing. The court first affirmed that Leader's state conviction for attempted drug sale constituted an "aggravated felony" under the statute, as state crimes "punishable under" federal law are included. Turning to the constitutional challenge, the court applied a minimal scrutiny standard to the Equal Protection claim, finding it rational for Congress to treat drug trafficking as a serious aggravated felony. However, regarding Substantive Due Process, the court found the statute excessive. While deportation is regulatory and not penal, a blanket prohibition on bail imputes a threat to society to every individual without allowing for specific determination. Regarding Procedural Due Process, the absolute denial of a hearing prevents fair implementation of the regulation. The court cited United States v. Salerno and Carlson v. Landon to demonstrate that while detention is permissible, it usually requires a hearing to determine individual risk. The court held that Leader is entitled to a bail hearing to determine if he poses a flight risk or danger to the community.



Analysis:

This decision is significant because it strikes down a Congressional mandate regarding immigration detention on constitutional grounds. It reinforces the principle that even in the area of immigration, where Congress has plenary power, the Fifth Amendment protects individuals—including aliens—from arbitrary deprivations of liberty. The ruling distinguishes between the power to deport (which is broad) and the power to detain without process (which is limited). By requiring an individualized hearing, the court rejects 'irrebuttable presumptions' in civil detention contexts. This case serves as a precursor to later Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the limits of indefinite detention for immigrants.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Leader v. Blackman (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"