Padilla v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Pretrial Justice Institute, and Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance.

Brief filed: 09/04/2019


Padilla v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 19-35565

Prior Decision

387 F.Supp.3d 1219 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2019)


Well-established constitutional law requires that individuals detained by the government receive an individualized bond hearing. The procedural safeguards imposed by the district court for bond hearings are constitutionally required and routinely guaranteed by federal and state law in analogous contexts. Hearings on the need for detention must be prompt. The government must bear the burden of proof. An accurate, contemporaneous record with particularized findings must be kept. Vastly greater numbers of individuals have individualized bond hearings in state pretrial systems. Modern pretrial practices demonstrate that categorical detention of individuals seeking asylum is not necessary to ensure they appear at their hearings. Asylum seekers are likely to appear for their court dates. Risk assessment tools are available to guide the government in deciding which asylum seekers should be released pending immigration proceedings.

Continue reading below


Erin K. Earl, Julie Wilson-McNerney, and Anna Mouw Thompson, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA.

Explore keywords to find information

Featured Products