Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T10:22:30.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Burden of Proof in Immigration Bond Decisions: An Impact Study of Brito v. Barr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2025

Anthony J. DeMattee Open the ORCID record for Anthony J. DeMattee [Opens in a new window] ,
Hallie Ludsin Open the ORCID record for Hallie Ludsin [Opens in a new window] ,
Grace Shrestha ,
Grace Gerenday ,
Devon Thurman Open the ORCID record for Devon Thurman [Opens in a new window]  and
Jeffrey K. Staton Open the ORCID record for Jeffrey K. Staton [Opens in a new window]
Anthony J. DeMattee*
Affiliation:
Data Scientist, Democracy Program, The Carter Center
Hallie Ludsin
Affiliation:
Visiting Assistant Professor of Practice, Emory University School of Law
Grace Shrestha
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Emory University
Grace Gerenday
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Emory University
Devon Thurman
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Emory University
Jeffrey K. Staton
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Political Science, Emory University
*
Corresponding author: Anthony J. DeMattee; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Detained individuals subject to deportation have the right to a bond hearing in immigration court similar to that of detained individuals accused of a crime. Unlike criminal law, immigration law places the burden of proof on detained people rather than the government. We analyze the impact of a federal court decision that shifted the burden of proof to the government via a synthetic control study and a qualitative research design grounded in a new theoretical analysis of immigration courts that focuses on judicial decision-making and prosecutorial discretion. The evidence suggests significant limits on the federal courts’ ability to change bond outcomes merely through changing the burden of proof.

Keywords

separation of powersjudicial decision-makingprosecutorial discretionobservational studytreatment effectssynthetic controlimmigration courts
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , First View , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2010. “Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105(490): 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2015. “Comparative politics and the synthetic control method.” American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2020. “Synth: Stata module to implement synthetic control methods for comparative case studies.”Google Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, and Gardeazabal, Javier. 2003. “The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country.” American Economic Review 93(1): 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baez-Sanchez v. Barr. 2020. No. 19-1642 (7th Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., and Maltzman, Forrest. 2008. “Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy preferences on the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review, 369–384.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa, Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2006. “Does the US Constitution need an equal rights amendment?” Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 243–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. “The constraining capacity of legal doctrine on the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review, 474–495.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2009. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blasingame, Elise N., Boyd, Christina L., Carlos, Roberto F., and Ornstein, Joseph T.. 2023. “How the Trump administration’s quota policy transformed immigration judging.” American Political Science Review, 1–16.Google Scholar
Brady, Colin. 2022. “Freedom in the balance: Procedural due process rights and the burden of proof in detention hearings in immigration removal proceedings.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 31: 1241.Google Scholar
Brito v. Barr. 2020. No. 17-72644 (9th Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Kornhauser, Lewis A.. 2024. “What do judges want? How to model judicial preferences.” Asian Journal of Law and Economics 15(2): 167–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Edward K. 2012. “Reconceptualizing the burden of proof.” Yale LJ 122: 1254.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2009. “The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 971–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coglianese, Cary, and Walters, Daniel E.. 2024. “The great unsettling: Administrative governance after Loper Bright.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker.” Journal of Public Law 6: 279.Google Scholar
DeMattee, Anthony J., Lindsay, Matthew J., and Ludsin, Hallie. 2023. “An unreasonable presumption: The national security/foreign affairs nexus in immigration law.” Brooklyn Law Review 88(3): 747–796.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W., Ingram, Matthew C., and Lannes, Osmar P. Jr. 2015. “Power, composition, and decision making: The behavioral consequences of institutional reform on Brazil’s Supremo Tribunal Federal.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 31(3): 534–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, Dory Mitros. 2005. “The once and future judge: The rise and fall (and rise) of independence in US immigration courts.” Notre Dame Law Review 81: 655.Google Scholar
Eagly, Ingrid V. 2014. “Remote adjudication in immigration.” Northwestern University Law Review 109: 933.Google Scholar
Eagly, Ingrid V., and Shafer, Steven. 2015. “A national study of access to counsel in immigration court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164: 1.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional influence on bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finley, Janene R., and Karnes, Allan. 2008. “An empirical study of the change in the burden of proof in the United States Tax Court.” Pittsburgh Tax Review 6: 61.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Taking law seriously.” Perspectives on Politics, 261–276.Google Scholar
Gasaway, Robert R., and Parrish, Ashley C.. 2016. “Administrative law in flux: An opportunity for constitutional reassessment.” George Mason Law Review 24: 361.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the nature of Supreme Court decision making.” American Political Science Review, 323–337.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. “What’s law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the ‘legal model’ of judicial decision making.” Law & Social Inquiry 26(2): 465–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, David. 2016. “The failure of immigration appeals.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1177–1238.Google Scholar
Hay, Bruce L., and Spier, Kathryn E.. 1997. “Burdens of proof in civil litigation: An economic perspective.” Journal of Legal Studies 26(2): 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P. 2016. “Measuring precedent in a judicial hierarchy.” Law & Society Review 50(1): 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holper, Mary. 2016. “The beast of burden in immigration bond hearings.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 67: 75.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 2007. “What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?” Public Management Review 9(2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, Martha Anne, and Songer, Donald R.. 1999. “Law and politics in judicial oversight of federal administrative agencies.” Journal of Politics 61(1): 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Gbemende. 2014. “Judicial deference and executive control over administrative agencies.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14(2): 142–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Gbemende. 2015. “Executive power and judicial deference: Judicial decision making on executive power challenges in the American states.” Political Research Quarterly 68(1): 128–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Catherine Y., and Semet, Amy. 2019. “Presidential ideology and immigrant detention.” Duke Law Journal 69: 1855.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Epstein, Lee. 1996. “The norm of stare decisis.” American Journal of Political Science, 1018–1035.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1992. “Modeling collegial courts. II. Legal doctrine.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 8: 441.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Clark, Tom S.. 2012. “The Supreme Court’s many median justices.” American Political Science Review, 847–866.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2011. “The new judicial politics of legal doctrine.” Annual Review of Political Science 14(1):131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Association of Immigration Judges. 2019. “The Immigration Court In Crisis and in Need of Reform”. Technical report National Association of Immigration Judges. https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/Immigration_Court_in_Crisis_and_in_Need_of_Reform.pdf.Google Scholar
National Association of Immigration Judges. 2020. “Statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President National Association of Immigration Judges January 29, 2020, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship Hearing on ‘The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.’” Technical report National Association of Immigration Judges. https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/2020.01.29.00.pdf.Google Scholar
National Association of Immigration Judges. 2021. “Overview of EOIR Discipline and Performance Protocols”. Technical report National Association of Immigration Judges. https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/Overview_of_EOIR_Discipline_and_Performance_Protocols_3-13-21_Combined_files.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. 2017. Immigration Court Practice Manual. Official government report U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, VA. Updated November 2, 2017. http://www.justice.gov/eoir.Google Scholar
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. 2020a. Immigration Court Practice Manual. Official government report U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, VA. Updated July 2, 2020. http://www.justice.gov/eoir.Google Scholar
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. 2020b. Immigration Court Practice Manual. Official government report U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, VA. Updated December 31, 2020. http://www.justice.gov/eoir.Google Scholar
Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2007. “Fragmentation of power and the emergence of an effective judiciary in Mexico, 1994–2002.” Latin American Politics and Society 49(1): 31–57.Google Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. “Information and judicial review: A signaling game of legislative-judicial interaction.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryo, Emily. 2016. “Detained: A study of immigration bond hearings.” Law & Society Review 50(1): 117–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryo, Emily, and Peacock, Ian. 2021. “Represented but unequal: The contingent effect of legal representation in removal proceedings.” Law & Society Review 55(4): 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwyn, David, and Heise, Michael. 2010. “The gross beast of burden of proof: Experimental evidence on how the burden of proof influences employment discrimination case outcomes.” Arizona State Law Journal 42: 901.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. 1996. “The Supreme Court and federal administrative agencies: A resource-based theory and analysis of judicial impact.” American Journal of Political Science 40(4): 1122–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. 1997. “Explaining federal bureaucratic compliance with Supreme Court opinions.” Political Research Quarterly 50(3): 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K., and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. “The value of vagueness: Delegation, defiance, and judicial opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 504–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K., Gauri, Varun, and Cullell, Jorge Vargas. 2015. “The Costa Rican Supreme Court’s compliance monitoring system.” Journal of Politics 77(3).Google Scholar
Stobb, Maureen, Miller, Banks, and Kennedy, Joshua. 2023. “Who controls the immigration bureaucracy? The relative influence of the three branches over asylum policy implementation.” American Politics Research 51(2): 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Steve. 1999. “Burden of proof, writ large.” University of British Columbia Law Review 33: 75.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

DeMattee et al. supplementary material

Demattee et al. supplementary material
Download DeMattee et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.3 MB