U.S. Bishops and Catholic Legal Network File Supreme Court Amicus Brief Against Indefinite Detention of Noncitizens
On Sept. 8, 2026, CLINIC, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that prolonged, unreviewable immigration detention is unlawful and contrary to Catholic Social Teaching. The brief, filed in *Genalo v. Black*, urges the Court to recognize immigrants' liberty interests and constitutional rights to due process, arguing that courts have affirmed the right to judicial review of prolonged civil detention since the founding, and that prolonged detention without judicial review inflicts severe and often irreparable harm. The case concerns whether civil immigration detainees held under INA § 236(c) are entitled to individualized review of prolonged detention in the form of a bond hearing.
Freedom from physical restraint is a foundational constitutional liberty. Since the Founding, American courts have protected this right by requiring neutral, individualized judicial review to prevent prolonged or indefinite detention.
This protection applies equally to noncitizens. Even as early federal immigration statutes lacked explicit provisions for judicial review, courts consistently used habeas corpus petitions to check executive power and mandate bond hearings. Supreme Court precedent confirms that the Constitution requires judicial oversight of executive detention decisions.
This constitutional principle aligns with Catholic social teaching on human dignity and the rule of law. As Pope John XXIII noted in Pacem in Terris, the primary duty of government is to defend inviolable human rights and uphold the common good. Similarly, the Holy See recently reaffirmed to the United Nations that due process, equality before the law, and freedom from arbitrary confinement must always be observed.
While brief civil detentions without review have occasionally been upheld, long-term detention—such as the nearly two-year confinements permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)—violates our system of ordered liberty. Prolonged detention inflicts severe, irreparable harm: detainees lose jobs, homes, and health; families are separated; and individuals struggle to defend themselves legally. While public safety may sometimes justify temporary detention, the government must always prove that necessity before an impartial judge.
Constitutional Precedent: Freedom from arbitrary detention is a core constitutional right. Since the nineteenth century, courts have used habeas corpus and bond hearings to ensure executive immigration detention is subject to judicial review—even when statutes were silent on the matter.
Moral Framework: Catholic social teaching reinforces this legal standard. Core principles from Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris and recent Holy See statements emphasize that legitimate governance requires due process, equal protection, and respect for individual dignity.
Unprecedented Length: Current detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) lasting nearly two years without individualized hearings cross constitutional boundaries. The Supreme Court has never authorized indefinite confinement of this length without judicial oversight.
Human Impact: Unchecked detention causes catastrophic harm—job loss, eviction, health decline, family separation, and compromised legal defense. The state can only justify deprivations of liberty through individualized hearings before a neutral tribunal.
Sources: https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/litigation/clinic-and-usccb-file-supreme-court-amicus-brief-mandatory-detention and https://www.usccb.org/resources/26-0908_USCCB_Genalo%20v%20Keisy%20G.M.%20AmiciBriefFINAL.pdf
Image https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1438218971828489&set=pcb.1438219061828480
Comments