Question Presented
Does the Constitution require a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention extends for many months without any individual review of whether continued detention is necessary, and is this challenge moot after the detainee was released?
Facts of the Case
Keisy G.M. is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2011 and settled in the Bronx, New York. In 2015, following a 2012 altercation outside a New York City restaurant, he pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and was sentenced to two years in prison and three years of supervised release. After completing his sentence, G.M. lived with his mother, helped manage her medical needs, maintained steady employment, and helped support his family, including three young children.
On October 5, 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested G.M. at his home and began removal proceedings based on his 2015 conviction. ICE determined that the conviction triggered a federal statute directing the government to detain certain noncitizens with prior criminal convictions while removal proceedings are pending, a statute that provides no mechanism for a bond hearing and sets no time limit on detention. G.M. was placed in the Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey. COVID-19 restrictions at the facility impeded his ability to prepare his legal case. Over approximately twenty-one months, G.M. appeared at multiple hearings but never received a bond hearing at which an official would assess whether continued detention was actually necessary. He was released in July 2022 under a separate nationwide court order tied to pandemic-related concerns.
G.M. filed a petition for release in federal district court in May 2021, arguing that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated his constitutional right to due process. The district court denied the petition. G.M. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and directed the parties to also brief whether G.M.’s case is now moot.