Access to Justice

Banyee v. Garland

In Banyee v. Garland, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause entitles immigration detainees to a bond hearing after prolonged detention.

Case Summary

In 2004, Nyynkpao Banyee, then six years old, came to the United States as a refugee from the Ivory Coast. In 2018, he was convicted of a felony and sentenced to confinement. After Banyee’s release from state prison, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him and subjected him to mandatory detention in a county jail in Minnesota.

Banyee sought a bond hearing before an immigration judge, arguing that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In April 2022, after the government had detained Banyee for over a year, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in Banyee’s favor, ordering a hearing that resulted in his release on bond.

The government appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) authorizes it to detain noncitizens without a hearing as long as removal proceedings are ongoing. In May 2023, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Banyee. Our brief makes three main points.

First, we explain that under the Due Process Clause, noncitizens have the same liberty interest as citizens in freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. The Framers established in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that no “person” (not just “citizen”) may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because, as the Supreme Court once put it, the Framers “employed words in their natural sense” and “intended what they have said,” the protections of the Due Process Clause “are universal in their application.”

Second, we explain that in immigration proceedings as elsewhere, preventive detention may not be excessive in duration. For a court to determine that preventive detention is constitutional, the detention must be a proportional—not excessive—response to a legitimate state objective. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has upheld preventive detention only where the detention was not “excessively prolonged . . . in relation to [its] regulatory goal.” A lack of proportionality between the government’s purpose and the means used to achieve it can make prolonged detention excessive—and hence a violation of due process.

Preventive detention also generally requires the government to follow certain procedural safeguards, as our brief explains. Even when detention is supported by a valid goal, the Supreme Court has typically upheld it only where the government bears the burden of persuading an impartial decisionmaker of the need to detain a particular individual. In this case, the government argues that detention during removal proceedings need not comply with these requirements, but this is wrong. Both inside and outside the immigration context, the Supreme Court has held that due process requires a fair hearing before an independent decisionmaker, with a heightened burden on the government, before depriving a person of any significant liberty interest. The same burden must be met to incarcerate someone while removal proceedings are pending.

In sum, Banyee’s prolonged preventive detention was a violation of due process because the government did not meet the heightened burden of proof necessary to justify confinement and because its purpose was not proportional to the means used to achieve the detention.

Case Timeline

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
February 20, 2024

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
February 19, 2024

Bakery Drivers Head to High Court Searching for Arbitration Exit

Bloomberg Law
Industry test would add fights on transportation firm meaning With circuits split, high court to...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Jennifer Bennett
Access to Justice
January 31, 2024

The 5th Circuit Says Criminalizing Journalism Is Not Obviously Unconstitutional: The Appeals Court Dismissed a Civil Rights Lawsuit by a Laredo Gadfly Who Was Arrested for Asking Questions

Five years ago, the Harris County, Texas, Institute of Forensic Sciences sent me reports on...
Access to Justice
January 30, 2024

She Was Arrested for Her Journalism. A Federal Court Says She Can’t Sue.

Priscilla Villarreal, also known as “Lagordiloca,” has sparked a debate about free speech and who,...
Access to Justice
January 24, 2024

‘That’s Wrong for Several Reasons’: 7 Judges Dissent in This Divisive Case
“If any principle of constitutional law ought to unite all of us as Americans, it’s...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Merck v. Walmart

In Merck v. Walmart, the Sixth Circuit is considering whether employees and job applicants deprived of their right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being subjected to an adverse action on the...