This case established U.S. constitutional protections against prolonged immigration detention without review before a neutral arbiter.

Mr. Davis is a man of Jamaican descent with a claim to U.S. citizenship who has been imprisoned in immigration detention for over three years. Under current law, the government claims the power to indefinitely detain an immigrant without affording any type of hearing before a judge. In the district court, we successfully argued that when detention becomes prolonged, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the government to hold a hearing before a neutral decision maker where it must prove that no form of conditional release can adequately protect the community from danger Mr. Davis might pose.

Why is this a key case?

This case established U.S. constitutional protections against prolonged immigration detention without review before a neutral arbiter.

Mr. Davis is a man of Jamaican descent with a claim to U.S. citizenship who has been imprisoned in immigration detention for over three years. Under current law, the government claims the power to indefinitely detain an immigrant without affording any type of hearing before a judge. In the district court, we successfully argued that when detention becomes prolonged, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the government to hold a hearing before a neutral decision maker where it must prove that no form of conditional release can adequately protect the community from danger Mr. Davis might pose.

What is the status of the case?

In February 2023, the district court declared Mr. Davis’s ongoing detention unconstitutional and ordered the government to grant him an individualized bond hearing in which it must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably serve the government’s compelling regulatory interest in detaining him. The decision departs from precedent in the 4th and 9th Circuits holding that immigration courts conducting bond hearings need not consider alternatives to detention before denying release.

How is RFK Human Rights supporting?

RFK Human Rights represents Mr. Davis in a habeas corpus petition before the federal courts. The organization argues that Mr. Davis’s prolonged civil detention is unconstitutional unless he receives a hearing before an immigration judge where the government bears the burden of proving the need for his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.

Name of the case (as it appears in the respective legal mechanism)

Davis v. Garland, 2023 WL 1793575 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023)

---

Month/Year of filing

June 2022

---

Legal mechanism in which the case is being litigated

U.S. Federal District Court, Western District of New York

---

Rights and legal instruments alleged violated (or found to have been violated)

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

---

Procedural stage

Pending

---

Counsel

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York

February 7, 2023

District court decision granting habeas petition,

December 13, 2022

Government answer and return to habeas petition,

December 13, 2022

Government memorandum of law in opposition to habeas petition,

August 1, 2022

Amended petition for habeas corpus filed,