What Supreme Court or federal circuit rulings govern ICE detention of lawful permanent residents (include case names and years)?

1. How a 2003 Supreme Court decision narrowed challenges to mandatory detention — and why it matters

Demore v. Kim is the Supreme Court decision most frequently cited as permitting mandatory detention of noncitizens during removal proceedings and constraining broad judicial interference with statutory detention regimes; the Court upheld the constitutionality of detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) in the context of the immigration removal process while allowing some habeas review of constitutional claims, setting a baseline that the government could detain certain LPRs without individualized bond hearings in many circumstances ^[1]. This ruling is pivotal because it recognized that Congress’s detention scheme, when applied to non‑citizens with criminal convictions, could be constitutional under the federal immigration framework, thereby limiting the safety valve that regular habeas or routine bond hearings would provide. Civil‑liberties advocates and some circuits subsequently sought to limit Demore’s reach through statutory interpretation and procedural doctrines, producing divergent outcomes in federal courts that continue to shape ICE’s practices and litigation strategies ^{[2] [5]}.

2. The Supreme Court’s 2016–2018 interventions that changed detention litigation

A cluster of Supreme Court decisions, most notably Jennings v. Rodriguez, altered how lower courts interpret statutory detention provisions by rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s prior rule that required periodic bond hearings for long detention and emphasizing a textualist approach to immigration statutes; that decision narrowed avenues for mandatory periodic review under the statutes at issue and pushed many detention challenges back into habeas and constitutional analysis rather than statutory entitlements ^[5]. Critics say Jennings reduced procedural protections for detained LPRs by removing a uniform statutory mechanism for bond hearings, while supporters argue it restored proper separation of powers by leaving policy judgments to Congress and the Executive. Those competing narratives explain why federal circuits have continued to adjudicate detention questions differently, producing the fragmented landscape ICE currently navigates ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Circuit court pushes back: exceptions, timing rules, and due‑process limits

Federal circuit courts have pushed back against absolute detention authority by imposing timing and due‑process constraints: the Ninth Circuit’s Preap decision limited mandatory detention under § 1226(c) to those taken into custody “promptly” after criminal custody, offering release and bond remedies for delayed government action, while the Second Circuit’s Black v. Decker recognized that prolonged detention without bond can violate due process and require the government to justify continued custody by clear and convincing evidence ^{[2] [3]}. These circuit rulings demonstrate the real‑world limits on ICE detention: courts are treating statutory text, promptness of custody, and the length of confinement as discrete fault lines where LPR rights can be preserved. The result is a patchwork where an LPR’s detention risk depends heavily on which circuit and which factual posture governs their case ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Constitutional underpinnings: older Supreme Court rulings that still protect LPRs

Foundational Supreme Court decisions from earlier eras — Bridges v. Wixon, Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, and Mathews v. Diaz — established that LPRs enjoy constitutional protections against arbitrary deprivation of liberty and are owed due process under the Fifth Amendment, principles courts still apply when assessing detention practices ^[4]. These precedents form the constitutional backdrop against which courts measure new statutory interpretations: even when statutes permit detention, courts look to due process limits to curb arbitrary or prolonged confinement. Advocates point to these cases to argue for robust judicial oversight of ICE detention, while government lawyers distinguish removal detention as a special immigration context with different balancing of interests.

5. Recent controversies and the political context: new rulings and public reaction

Recent reporting and commentary show that new Supreme Court rulings and lower‑court decisions provoke sharp public debate about racial profiling, immigration enforcement power, and the rights of green‑card holders; critics warn decisions like Perdomo/Perdomo‑style holdings enable broad stops and risk treating LPRs and citizens as second‑class, while government proponents frame court restraint as necessary to enforce immigration laws effectively ^{[6] [7] [8]}. The polarized reactions reflect competing priorities—rule‑of‑law enforcement versus civil‑liberties safeguards—and explain why litigation continues across circuits seeking both statutory and constitutional relief for detained LPRs ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Bottom line for practitioners and LPRs navigating detention risk

The legal landscape governing ICE detention of lawful permanent residents is governed by a mixture of Supreme Court precedents that both recognize LPR constitutional protections and limit statutory remedies, together with circuit rulings that carve out timing and due‑process protections; key names to track in custody disputes are Demore v. Kim, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Preap v. Johnson, and recent circuit opinions such as Black v. Decker, alongside foundational cases like Bridges and Kwong Hai Chew that anchor due‑process claims ^{[1] [5] [2] [3] [4]}. Practitioners must litigate detention challenges on multiple fronts—statutory interpretation, habeas jurisdiction, and constitutional due process—because outcomes hinge on the exact statutory provision invoked, factual timing, and the circuit forum.