U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Constitutionality of INS Pre-Hearing Detention of Alien Children

NCJ Number
155175
Journal
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume: 62 Issue: 1 Dated: (Summer 1993) Pages: 217-246
Author(s)
T A Bockhorst
Date Published
1993
Length
30 pages
Annotation
The Ninth Circuit in Flores v. Meese issued an important decision affirming the basic rights of aliens and children; the court properly defined the right implicated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detention of three Salvadoran girls based on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases that recognized the core nature of liberty from physical restraint.
Abstract
The three Salvadoran girls were arrested by the INS in 1985 on suspicion of being illegal aliens subject to deportation. The girls' mothers were in the United States at the time of the arrest but refused to come forward and take custody of the girls for fear of also being arrested and deported to El Salvador. The case came to trial, and evidence presented at trial indicated that the INS had detained children for as long as 2 years under its detention policy. The district court required the INS to conduct an administrative hearing for any minor taken into custody to determine proper cause for arrest and the need for any restrictions on the minor's release. On appeal by the U.S. Attorney General and the INS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's holding on substantive due process rights of alien minors. This court appropriately rejected the judicial deference suggested by the plenary power doctrine in immigration matters because that doctrine lacked a principled jurisprudential base and also did not extend to child welfare issues. In addition, the court appropriately rejected the INS assertion of the parens patriae doctrine because INS interests in the case conflicted with the children's best interests. 203 footnotes