Jennings v. Rodriguez
The Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.
138 S. Ct. 830 · No. 15-1204 · 2017 term · Roberts Court
Decided Feb 27, 2018 · argued Nov 30, 2016, reargued Oct 3, 2017
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Samuel Alito
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. Jennings won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Jennings was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.
The case was brought about by Mexican citizen and lawful U.S. permanent resident Alex Rodriguez. After a 2004 incident, he was detained on the grounds of 8 U.S.C. 1226, which states that under a warrant by the Attorney General immigrants may be arrested and detained while their case status is decided. Rodriguez challenged this justification in 2007 through habeas corpus, claiming immigrants had the right to a bond hearing without "prolonged" detention according to 8 U.S.C. 1225. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his entry deciding detained immigrants had the right to a periodic hearing if one had not already been held after 6 months.
The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion after granting a writ of certiorari in June 2016. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority and concluded that no provision of 8 U.S.C. 1225 limits length of detention to six months, or suggests length of detention should be a factor when deciding on release of a detained immigrant.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Samuel AlitoWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Elena Kagan.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- JenningsImmigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement
- Respondent
- RodriguezAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 27, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed and remanded. Jennings won.
- Oct 3, 2017RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Nov 30, 2016ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Mullin v. al Otro Lado146 S. Ct. 2079Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2079Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Urias-Orellana v. Bondi607 U.S. 537Mar 4, 2026 · 607 U.S. 537Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Department of State v. Muñoz144 S. Ct. 1812Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1812Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Wilkinson v. Garland601 U.S. 209Mar 19, 2024 · 601 U.S. 209Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Pugin v. Garland599 U.S. 600Jun 22, 2023 · 599 U.S. 600Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Garland v. Ming Dai141 S. Ct. 1669Jun 1, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1669Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Niz-Chavez v. Garland, Attorney General141 S. Ct. 1474Apr 29, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1474Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Barton v. Barr140 S. Ct. 1442Apr 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1442Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Trump, President of U.S. v. HawaiiLandmark · Foreign138 S. Ct. 2392Jun 26, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2392Civil rightsLandmark · Foreign5–45–4 band
- Kerry v. Din576 U.S. 86Jun 15, 2015 · 576 U.S. 86Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States556 U.S. 646May 4, 2009 · 556 U.S. 646Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board535 U.S. 137Mar 27, 2002 · 535 U.S. 137Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ronald W. Reagan, President of the United States, et al. v. James Abourezk et al.484 U.S. 1Oct 19, 1987 · 484 U.S. 1Civil rights3–36–3 band
- Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Yee Chien Woo402 U.S. 49Apr 21, 1971 · 402 U.S. 49Civil rights5–45–4 band
- International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 37, et al. v. Boyd, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service347 U.S. 222Mar 8, 1954 · 347 U.S. 222Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Clark, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Allen et al.331 U.S. 503Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 503Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.