Immigration and Citizenship

Velasco Lopez v. Decker

In Velasco Lopez v. Decker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the government may incarcerate someone without bail during deportation proceedings without showing that the person would likely abscond or be dangerous if released.

Case Summary

Carlos Velasco Lopez is a citizen of Mexico who was brought to the United States as a small child in 1995. After his temporary legal status lapsed, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed him in deportation proceedings, and it detained him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) while those proceedings continued. Although this statute permits the release of detainees on bond or parole, an immigration judge denied release based on the standard that the executive branch requires immigration judges to apply. Under this standard, the government does not need to justify its detention of a person in deportation proceedings by demonstrating that a person will likely abscond or be dangerous if released. Instead, people who are detained may be released only if they can prove that they will not be dangerous or a flight risk.

Velasco Lopez sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, arguing that the standard used at bond hearings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court agreed, holding that in order to detain a person pending deportation proceedings, the government must establish by “clear and convincing” evidence that the person is a flight risk or is likely to endanger the community if released. The government appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, where CAC filed a brief supporting Velasco Lopez.

Our brief makes three main points. First, the Fifth Amendment protects noncitizens as fully as citizens, shielding every “person” (not just “citizens”) from deprivations of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, therefore, while the government may deport noncitizens who are ineligible to remain in this country, when doing so it must give them the same level of due process protection that it gives to citizens.

Second, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government must satisfy a heightened standard of proof—“clear and convincing evidence”—before depriving someone of a significant liberty interest, whether or not that person is a citizen, and whether or not the government is exercising its powers over immigration. For both citizens and noncitizens, “liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”

Third, while the Supreme Court has permitted Congress to adjust the normal due process presumptions for some deportable noncitizens, the Court has allowed this only in narrow circumstances—where Congress has spoken clearly in legislation based on abundant evidence that particular groups of noncitizens were especially dangerous, and where strong procedural protections guarded against erroneous detention. None of those special circumstances are present here. Instead, without authorization from Congress, the executive branch has unilaterally adopted a policy requiring the presumptive incarceration of any person it accuses of being a deportable noncitizen. That violates the Due Process Clause.

Case Timeline

  • February 11, 2020

    CAC files an amicus curiae brief

    2d Cir. Amicus Br.
  • May 13, 2020

    The Second Circuit hears oral arguments

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Make the Road New York v. Wolf

In Make the Road New York v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to drastically expand...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project v. USCIS

In Northwest Immigrant Rights Project v. USCIS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, to drastically increase...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf

In Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, to drastically...
Immigration and Citizenship
August 31, 2020

Poppycock!’: Judge Blocks Trump Policy Tapping Border Agents to Screen Asylum-Seekers

The National Law Journal
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday blocked a Trump administration policy that allowed...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Batalla Vidal v. Wolf; New York v. Trump

In Batalla Vidal v. Wolf and New York v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is considering a challenge to an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security,...
Immigration and Citizenship
August 18, 2020

Civil Rights and First Amendment Defenders Urge First Circuit to Require a Warrant for Border Device Searches

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Last month, EFF, along with co-counsel ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, filed a brief in Alasaad v. Wolf urging...