Garland v. Gonzalez
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Garland v. Gonzalez and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Garland v. Gonzalez.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether district courts had jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Court found that Section 1252(f)(1) of the INA generally prohibits lower courts from issuing such relief. The decision reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of class-wide injunctions requiring bond hearings for detained aliens.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Garland v. Gonzalez.
The Court held that Section 1252(f)(1) of the INA deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents' requests for class-wide injunctive relief.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Garland v. Gonzalez. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Garland v. Gonzalez
The case primarily deals with the scope of judicial authority to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the INA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Section 1252(f )(1) of the INA deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents' requests for class-wide injunctive relief.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Garland v. Gonzalez
The Court's decision involves the power of federal courts to review and issue injunctions against government actions under the INA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Section 1252(f )(1) generally strips lower courts of 'jurisdiction or authority' to 'enjoin or restrain the operation of' certain provisions of the INA.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Garland v. Gonzalez
The case addresses whether the District Courts had jurisdiction to grant class-wide relief, implicating standing and jurisdictional requirements.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court granted certiorari and instructed the parties to brief the threshold question whether the District Courts had jurisdiction to entertain respondents' requests for class-wide injunctive relief under the INA.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Garland v. Gonzalez that support the summary and concepts above.
Section 1252(f )(1) generally strips lower courts of 'jurisdiction or authority' to 'enjoin or restrain the operation of' certain provisions of the INA.
The ordinary meaning of the terms 'enjoin' and 'restrain' bars the class-wide relief awarded by the two District Courts here.
It is sufficient to hold that the class-wide injunctive relief awarded in these cases was unlawful.
