Detaining Due Process: The Need for Procedural Reform in 'Joseph' Hearings after Demore v. Kim

46 Pages Posted: 24 Jun 2014 Last revised: 22 Sep 2015

Date Written: 2006

Abstract

In Demore v. Kim, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory detention of legal permanent residents who had conceded removability. This Article critiques the Court's excessive reliance on the noncitizen's concession of removability in justifying mandatory detention and the Court's assumption that the availability of a so-called "Joseph" hearing, at which a noncitizen may contest her inclusion in the mandatory detention statute, adequately protects noncitizens from the erroneous deprivation of liberty. This Article argues that the procedures in place at the Joseph hearing violate procedural due process under Mathews v. Eldridge and explores possible procedural reforms.

Keywords: Joseph hearing, mandatory detention, due process, burden of proof

JEL Classification: K19

Suggested Citation

Bhargava Ray, Shalini, Detaining Due Process: The Need for Procedural Reform in 'Joseph' Hearings after Demore v. Kim (2006). Shalini Bhargava, Detaining Due Process: The Need for Procedural Reform in 'Joseph' Hearings After Demore v. Kim, 31 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 51 (2006)., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2458004

Shalini Bhargava Ray (Contact Author)

University of Alabama School of Law ( email )

101 Paul W. Bryant Dr.
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
37
Abstract Views
411
PlumX Metrics