Case Citator › Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison

Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
905 F.3d 208
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2021–2022
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated: all 31 flagged citations have been read. The Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez rejected the statutory bond hearing rule in Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison.
More on how this was screened

Davis v. Garland expressly recognized that abrogation. Earlier, St. Charles v. Barr declined to follow Guerrero-Sanchez's separate conclusion about which statute governs detention during withholding-only proceedings. Both confirmed treatments are listed below. Guerrero-Sanchez's due process discussion was not resolved by the Supreme Court's statutory ruling.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Guerrero-Sanchez's rule that Section 1231(a)(6) requires a bond hearing after six months of detention.

    Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The issue in this case is whether the text of §1231(a)(6) requires the Government to offer detained noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention in which the Government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. It does not.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The court declined to follow Guerrero-Sanchez's conclusion that Section 1231 governs detention during withholding-only proceedings and applied binding Second Circuit law instead.

    St. Charles v. Barr · Western District of New York · filed

    Respondents contend that the Second Circuit’s holding in Guerra was based on a “mistake in law” (Dkt. 6-4 at 20), and ask the Court to follow the law of the Third and Ninth Circuits, which have held that aliens in withholding-only proceedings are subject to final orders of removal, see Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208, 215-16 (3d Cir. 2018); Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 882 F.3d 826, 830-31 (9th Cir. 2017).1 However, “[t]his Court is bound to follow controlling Second Circuit precedent unless that precedent is overruled or reversed—even if . . . the precedent has been criticized by . . . certain courts in other Circuits.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace