In recent weeks, Supreme Court rulings on three cases relating to the rules that govern immigration law have been determined. The Court heard Johnson v. Arteaga Martinez, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, and Egbert v. Boule, ruling on matters of bond rights and civil actions against Border Patrol agents. Heard as companion cases, the ruling of Arteaga Martinez and Aleman Gonzalez proved to limit the rights of non-citizen detainees in their ability to seek bond hearings while in custody. In Boule, the Court established further immunity to governmental officers, specifically Border Patrol agents, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court heard Arteaga-Martinez and Aleman Gonzalez, jointly. Each case pivoted on the right of non-citizens to have bond hearings while in U.S. detainment.

In Arteaga-Martinez, Antonio Arteaga-Martinez is a native citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without an inspection. He was then arrested and detained, initiating removal proceedings to return to Mexico. He applied for a withhold of removal status, which grants an applicant to remain in the U.S. without any progression towards citizenship. After six months of detention, he requested a bond hearing and challenged his detainment without one.

In Aleman Gonzalez, Estaban Aleman Gonzalez and Gutierrez Sanchez are native citizens of Mexico as well. However, they resided in the United States. The government had begun removal proceedings against each, but it was determined that each had a legitimate fear of persecution or torture in Mexico. Nonetheless, both men were detained and remained in detention for 180 days, without a bond hearing.

Hearing both cases jointly, the Supreme Court had to determine whether a non-citizen is entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention. The Court answered no, citing §1231(a)(6) of the United States Code. The Court found that the code did not, at face value, include a requirement of bond hearings. Rather, it only limits the period of detainment and release conditions. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the rule that the U.S. is not required to grant bond hearings, even if a non-citizen has been in detention for six months or more.

On June 8, 2022, the Supreme Court heard Egbert v. Boule, the Court had to determine whether a plaintiff had the right to sue a federal office under the 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment while engaging in immigration-related matters. Boule, an inn owner on the Canadian border, assisted in helping Border Patrol agent Egbert, in finding border smugglers. However, Egbert later found out that Boule was also involved in border smuggling, prompting him to assault Boule. Boule filed suit, seeking civil damages from Egbert. As Boule attempted to seek damages through Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents ruling, the Supreme Court held that its protections did not extend to the Fourth Amendment. Rather, they ruled that this was a matter better suited for Congress – not the courts.

The recent Supreme Court rulings on immigration matters have seemingly provided further protection for the government and its agents but have minimized rights for non-citizens and citizens alike. Upon these rulings, it is now permissible for non-citizens to remain detained for six months or more without a bond hearing. In addition, the Supreme Court has upheld that government officers are further protected by the Bivens rule. However, this may be subject to change, as Congress may legislate on the matter.

ILBSG continues to actively monitor ongoing legal updates and rulings that may affect immigration. We put our knowledge and expertise to work for our clients, to ensure they get the right advice. Contact us if you have any immigration-related issues.

Immigration Law supreme court