Garland v. Gonzalez

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: June 13, 2022
  • Case #: 20-322
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III.
  • Full Text Opinion

District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1).

Respondents are undocumented immigrants who were detained while awaiting removal proceedings. Respondents filed class action lawsuits because they claimed anyone detained for more than six months were entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6). Respondents filed their class action lawsuits in the District Courts of the Northern District of California and the Western District of Washington and both courts certified the classes and granted injunctive relief to Respondents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the District Courts did not have jurisdiction to issue a class-wide injunction. The Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the provision barred class-wide relief but did not bar individual relief. Further, the Court reasoned that Respondents' arguments that District Courts can grant class-wide injunctive relief if all individual class members qualify is not proper because the statute refers to "an individual" and not "individuals." REVERSED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search

Back to Top