What legal challenges or court rulings during 2009–2016 affected ICE detention and removal procedures?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
From 2009–2016 a patchwork of federal court decisions, administrative guidance, and challenges to ICE’s practices narrowed certain detention tools and emphasized constitutional limits: courts questioned the legal weight of ICE detainers and demanded procedural safeguards when detention became prolonged, the Board of Immigration Appeals and courts limited automatic detention for some classes of noncitizens, and successive incarnations of ICE’s own detention standards were revised and litigated for enforceability [1] [2] [3].
1. Courts dented the legal force of ICE detainers, treating them as requests not commands
Several federal decisions in the period concluded that ICE detainers — forms asking local jails to hold people for civil immigration custody — do not by themselves create independent legal authority to detain and thus cannot automatically justify extended state-custody without probable cause or a warrant, a line of reasoning reflected in practice memos and advocacy guidance challenging detainer-based detention [1] [4].
2. Fourth Amendment and habeas litigation reined in warrantless post-arrest holds
Litigants and courts pressed Fourth Amendment claims about arrests and continued custody tied to immigration enforcement, with courts noting established precedent that immigration stops and arrests must meet constitutional standards and citing cases where plaintiffs were held longer because of detainers [1]. Practitioners routinely used habeas petitions to attack individual detentions under INA §236(a), arguing for individualized custody determinations and bond hearings rather than automatic, indefinite confinement [5] [2].
3. Lower-court development of “prolonged detention” doctrine built on Demore and Zadvydas
Although the Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim allowed some mandatory detention, lower courts during 2009–2016 interpreted that decision together with Zadvydas to impose constitutional limits when detention becomes prolonged, with some courts requiring bond hearings once detention reached lengths that raised due process concerns and shifting the government’s burden to justify continued custody [2].
4. Administrative doctrine and the Accardi argument—courts pushed back on enforceability of ICE’s own rules
Detention standards issued and updated by immigration agencies (with versions in 2008, 2011, and 2016) became central to litigation over conditions and procedures; some petitioners relied on the Accardi doctrine—requiring agencies to follow their own rules—to challenge ICE conduct, but courts in some instances refused to apply Accardi to detention standards, limiting private enforcement even as commentators and litigants argued violations threatened detainees’ life and liberty [3].
5. BIA decisions and matters affecting bond eligibility (Matter of A‑W‑ and related rulings)
Administrative rulings in the BIA and related doctrinal developments affected who was eligible for bond or subject to mandatory custody: for example, Matter of A‑W‑ and subsequent interpretations influenced practitioners’ strategies around bond eligibility for asylum or visa-waiver entrants, shaping litigation and advocacy seeking individualized custody determinations [5] [2].
6. Procedural safeguards in immigration court and detention reviews were clarified, but gaps remained
The Executive Office for Immigration Review articulated detention review procedures and standards for continued custody hearings, including DHS’s burden to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence in certain continued detention reviews and limits on how often detainees may seek reconsideration, yet access-to-counsel shortfalls and practical barriers persisted—underscored by reporting of widespread pro se appearances—leaving procedural protections uneven in practice [6] [7].
7. Litigation focused as much on conditions and enforcement practices as on removal mechanics
Beyond individual custody questions, lawsuits and watchdog reporting attacked conditions in contract facilities and ICE’s reliance on jail bed rentals, while commentators and courts debated whether agency detention standards constitute enforceable rights or mere self-regulation—an unresolved tension that animated litigation from wrongful-detention suits to class actions challenging expedited removal expansions [3] [8] [9].