Kyle Wagner v. United States

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 authorizes the detention of a person charged with a criminal offense pending trial if a “judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person” for trial “and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1), (f). If the detainee or the government disagrees with the district court’s judgment on that issue, they may “appeal from a release or detention order,” and ask the court of appeals to review that decision. Id. § 3145(c). But “[t]he circuits have long been split on just how searching that review is.” United States v. Wilks, 15 F.4th 842, 847 (7th Cir. 2021). “Some courts” apply de novo review, others apply “the clearly erroneous or other highly deferential standard,” and still others occupy a middle ground, conducting “independent review” tempered by “deference” to the district court. United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 810, 812-814 (1st Cir. 1990). The question presented is: Whether an appellate court should review a district court’s order granting or denying pretrial release de novo—as the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held—or whether the appellate court owes some deference to the district court’s determination, as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and D.C. Circuits have held?