Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Demore v. Kim: Mandatory Detention During Removal Proceedings

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 28, 2026

Demore addresses the facial operation of section 1226(c), but its procedural posture, expected duration, and later detention jurisprudence matter when applying it to prolonged confinement.

A lawful permanent resident challenged detention without bond

Hyung Joon Kim conceded convictions that brought him within the mandatory-detention statute but sought habeas relief from custody during his removal case.

Congress targeted a defined category

Section 1226(c) requires detention of certain noncitizens with specified criminal histories during proceedings. The Court contrasted this finite process with potentially indefinite post-removal-order custody.

Duration was central to the majority’s reasoning

The Court described detention during removal proceedings as generally brief and closely tied to adjudication. Justice Kennedy’s controlling concurrence recognized that unreasonable delay could justify an individualized inquiry into continued detention authority.

Disposition

The Court reversed the habeas judgment and upheld mandatory detention in the circumstances presented. The decision did not categorically resolve every prolonged-detention challenge.

Key takeaways

• Identify the precise statutory detention authority.
• Measure custody and procedural delay accurately.
• Allocate responsibility for continuances rather than using duration alone.
• Read Demore with later due-process and statutory detention decisions.