United States v. David Seeright

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 1226(e) does not “limit habeas jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law” (quotation marks omitted)
• holding that as the “period of [the noncitizen’s] confinement grows, so do the required procedural protections no matter what level of due process may have been sufficient at the moment of initial detention.”
• noting that the government’s interest in “ensuring [that detained noncitizens] do not commit crimes” is “well-established and not disputed”
• holding that the government bore the burden to prove petitioner in prolonged mandatory detention under § 1226(c) is either a flight risk or a danger to the community because Velasco-Lopez “interchangeably cites cases where the alien is held under § 1226(a) and § 1226(c
• detailing that the government often has access to “numerous databases[,] . . . to information collected by DHS, DOJ, and the FBI, [and to] information in the hands of state and local authorities”
• detailing that the government often has access to “numerous databases[,] . . . to information collected by DHS, DOJ, and the FBI, [and to] information in the hands of state and local authorities”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).